It is currently 12 Dec 2017, 12:12

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# One noted economist has made a comparison of the Federal

Author Message
Intern
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 19

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 May 2006, 07:36
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:20) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 4 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

One noted economist has made a comparison of the Federal Reserve and an automobile as racing through a tunnel, bouncing first off one wall, then the other: the car may get where it is going, but people may be hurt in the process.
(A) made a comparison of the Federal Reserve and an automobile as racing through a tunnel, bouncing
(B) made a comparison between the Federal Reserve and an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing
(C) compared the federal Reserve with an automobile as racing through a tunnel and which bounced
(D) compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing
(E) compared the Federal Reserve with an automobile that races through a tunnel and it bounces

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

 Economist GMAT Tutor Discount Codes Math Revolution Discount Codes e-GMAT Discount Codes
Director
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 937

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

Location: France

### Show Tags

29 May 2006, 08:00
Here compared with should be preferred to compared to as we comparing 2 things that are not similar - Federal Reserve and a car.

However, C is incorrect as it says - ...racing...which bounced
E - ..it bounces...makes the sentence awkward.

B makes the sentence clear and compares Federal Reserve and an automobile (that is) racing...., bouncing...

So, I will go with B

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 1337

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 May 2006, 08:09
ecotopia wrote:
One noted economist has made a comparison of the Federal Reserve and an automobile as racing through a tunnel, bouncing first off one wall, then the other: the car may get where it is going, but people may be hurt in the process.
(A) made a comparison of the Federal Reserve and an automobile as racing through a tunnel, bouncing
(B) made a comparison between the Federal Reserve and an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing
(C) compared the federal Reserve with an automobile as racing through a tunnel and which bounced
(D) compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing
(E) compared the Federal Reserve with an automobile that races through a tunnel and it bounces

its D. "comparision to" is required here to make the comparision between unlike things.

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 937

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

Location: France

### Show Tags

29 May 2006, 08:44
Prof...you are right I confused compared with/to...(reading my notes again).
In that case D should be correct..

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 1883

Kudos [?]: 394 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 May 2006, 08:54
Professor wrote:
ecotopia wrote:
One noted economist has made a comparison of the Federal Reserve and an automobile as racing through a tunnel, bouncing first off one wall, then the other: the car may get where it is going, but people may be hurt in the process.
(A) made a comparison of the Federal Reserve and an automobile as racing through a tunnel, bouncing
(B) made a comparison between the Federal Reserve and an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing
(C) compared the federal Reserve with an automobile as racing through a tunnel and which bounced
(D) compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing
(E) compared the Federal Reserve with an automobile that races through a tunnel and it bounces

its D. "comparision to" is required here to make the comparision between unlike things.

Totally concur!! You nailed it, buddy~!!

Kudos [?]: 394 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 1337

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 May 2006, 09:05
laxieqv wrote:
Totally concur!! You nailed it, buddy~!!

hi baby, welcome back. i am throwing a party for you.

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 1883

Kudos [?]: 394 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 May 2006, 09:07
Professor wrote:
laxieqv wrote:
Totally concur!! You nailed it, buddy~!!

hi baby, welcome back. i am throwing a party for you.

Well, i'm always around, although i seem reclusive once in a while

Kudos [?]: 394 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1115

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 1

Location: India

### Show Tags

29 May 2006, 18:44
Agree with D and of course with professor's explaination.

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 1

SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1728

Kudos [?]: 103 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 May 2006, 20:34
Will go with D. Compare to for comparing two unlike thingsâ€¦..

Kudos [?]: 103 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5032

Kudos [?]: 456 [0], given: 0

Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

29 May 2006, 21:37
A --> awkward sentence
B --> turns the sentence into one of comparing two items, instead of likening one to the other
C,E --> 'compared with' is incorrect

D is the best choice. 'compared to' is idiomatic

Kudos [?]: 456 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2734

Kudos [?]: 1089 [0], given: 4

Location: New York City

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2007, 22:43
One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing first off one wall, then the other: the car may get where it is going, but people may be hurt in the process.

Why doesn't bouncing modify the tunnel?

Kudos [?]: 1089 [0], given: 4

CEO
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2734

Kudos [?]: 1089 [0], given: 4

Location: New York City

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2007, 01:50
dwivedys wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing first off one wall, then the other: the car may get where it is going, but people may be hurt in the process.

Why doesn't bouncing modify the tunnel?

just realized it is a is participial phrase...

Could you explain this in a bit more detail?

One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing off one wall, then the other.

Kudos [?]: 1089 [0], given: 4

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1438

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2007, 01:58
bmwhype2 wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing first off one wall, then the other: the car may get where it is going, but people may be hurt in the process.

Why doesn't bouncing modify the tunnel?

just realized it is a is participial phrase...

Could you explain this in a bit more detail?

One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing off one wall, then the other.

Hi BMW...ok you might be wondering why i am persisting with this. I perfectly understand boucning modifies the car. I wanted to understand if the comma immediately after TUNNEL has any role to play.

Let me explain what I am asking.

What happens if instead of the CAR itself, I wanted to say something about the TUNNEL in this sentence? Let's say

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel [i]without any lights[/i]
Now - does the phrase WITHOUT ANY LIGHTS modify Automobile or Tunnel?

Sample another variant - Now I'll put a comma after Tunnel and use the same phrase

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, without any lights

Do you see what's happening and do you have an explanation.

To be honest, this confuses the hell out of me.

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

CEO
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2734

Kudos [?]: 1089 [0], given: 4

Location: New York City

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2007, 02:55
dwivedys wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing first off one wall, then the other: the car may get where it is going, but people may be hurt in the process.

Why doesn't bouncing modify the tunnel?

just realized it is a is participial phrase...

Could you explain this in a bit more detail?

One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing off one wall, then the other.

Hi BMW...ok you might be wondering why i am persisting with this. I perfectly understand boucning modifies the car. I wanted to understand if the comma immediately after TUNNEL has any role to play.

Let me explain what I am asking.

What happens if instead of the CAR itself, I wanted to say something about the TUNNEL in this sentence? Let's say

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel [i]without any lights[/i]
Now - does the phrase WITHOUT ANY LIGHTS modify Automobile or Tunnel?

Sample another variant - Now I'll put a comma after Tunnel and use the same phrase

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, without any lights

Do you see what's happening and do you have an explanation.

To be honest, this confuses the hell out of me.

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, without any lights
hmm. i do not think you can connect an independent to a dependent clause with a preposition.

i can think of two ways to modify tunnel
has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel without any lights

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, which was without any lights

Kudos [?]: 1089 [0], given: 4

CEO
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2734

Kudos [?]: 1089 [0], given: 4

Location: New York City

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2007, 02:58
bmwhype2 wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing first off one wall, then the other: the car may get where it is going, but people may be hurt in the process.

Why doesn't bouncing modify the tunnel?

just realized it is a is participial phrase...

Could you explain this in a bit more detail?

One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing off one wall, then the other.

Hi BMW...ok you might be wondering why i am persisting with this. I perfectly understand boucning modifies the car. I wanted to understand if the comma immediately after TUNNEL has any role to play.

Let me explain what I am asking.

What happens if instead of the CAR itself, I wanted to say something about the TUNNEL in this sentence? Let's say

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel [i]without any lights[/i]
Now - does the phrase WITHOUT ANY LIGHTS modify Automobile or Tunnel?

Sample another variant - Now I'll put a comma after Tunnel and use the same phrase

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, without any lights

Do you see what's happening and do you have an explanation.

To be honest, this confuses the hell out of me.

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, without any lights
hmm. i do not think you can connect an independent to a dependent clause with a preposition.

i can think of two ways to modify tunnel
has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel without any lights

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, which was without any lights

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel that was without any lights

the purpose of the comma is to separate the independent clause, forming a complete sentence/independent clause before tacking on a participial phrase

Kudos [?]: 1089 [0], given: 4

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1438

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2007, 03:10
bmwhype2 wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing first off one wall, then the other: the car may get where it is going, but people may be hurt in the process.

Why doesn't bouncing modify the tunnel?

just realized it is a is participial phrase...

Could you explain this in a bit more detail?

One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing off one wall, then the other.

Hi BMW...ok you might be wondering why i am persisting with this. I perfectly understand boucning modifies the car. I wanted to understand if the comma immediately after TUNNEL has any role to play.

Let me explain what I am asking.

What happens if instead of the CAR itself, I wanted to say something about the TUNNEL in this sentence? Let's say

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel [i]without any lights[/i]
Now - does the phrase WITHOUT ANY LIGHTS modify Automobile or Tunnel?

Sample another variant - Now I'll put a comma after Tunnel and use the same phrase

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, without any lights

Do you see what's happening and do you have an explanation.

To be honest, this confuses the hell out of me.

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, without any lights
hmm. i do not think you can connect an independent to a dependent clause with a preposition.

i can think of two ways to modify tunnel
has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel without any lights

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, which was without any lights

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel that was without any lights

the purpose of the comma is to separate the independent clause, forming a complete sentence/independent clause before tacking on a participial phrase

OK - Let me restate my question. If "without any lights" can be made to modify tunnel, why does BOUNCING (in the original sentence) not modify it (tunnel)?

It's hard to believe just because "bouncing" is participial it will modify the "automobile"

I'm sorry for being so persistent.

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

CEO
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 2734

Kudos [?]: 1089 [0], given: 4

Location: New York City

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2007, 03:19
dwivedys wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing first off one wall, then the other: the car may get where it is going, but people may be hurt in the process.

Why doesn't bouncing modify the tunnel?

just realized it is a is participial phrase...

Could you explain this in a bit more detail?

One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing off one wall, then the other.

Hi BMW...ok you might be wondering why i am persisting with this. I perfectly understand boucning modifies the car. I wanted to understand if the comma immediately after TUNNEL has any role to play.

Let me explain what I am asking.

What happens if instead of the CAR itself, I wanted to say something about the TUNNEL in this sentence? Let's say

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel [i]without any lights[/i]
Now - does the phrase WITHOUT ANY LIGHTS modify Automobile or Tunnel?

Sample another variant - Now I'll put a comma after Tunnel and use the same phrase

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, without any lights

Do you see what's happening and do you have an explanation.

To be honest, this confuses the hell out of me.

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, without any lights
hmm. i do not think you can connect an independent to a dependent clause with a preposition.

i can think of two ways to modify tunnel
has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel without any lights

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, which was without any lights

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel that was without any lights

the purpose of the comma is to separate the independent clause, forming a complete sentence/independent clause before tacking on a participial phrase

OK - Let me restate my question. If "without any lights" can be made to modify tunnel, why does BOUNCING (in the original sentence) not modify it (tunnel)?

It's hard to believe just because "bouncing" is participial it will modify the "automobile"

I'm sorry for being so persistent.

i am not absolutely sure.

take the "single pronoun, double referent" situation in which only one referent can make sense in the entire context of the stem. that pronoun has a clear referent. it may apply to this situation as well.

by the way, i made a mistake in one of my sentences...catch it?

Kudos [?]: 1089 [0], given: 4

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1438

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2007, 03:29
bmwhype2 wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
dwivedys wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
bmwhype2 wrote:
One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing first off one wall, then the other: the car may get where it is going, but people may be hurt in the process.

Why doesn't bouncing modify the tunnel?

just realized it is a is participial phrase...

Could you explain this in a bit more detail?

One noted economist has compared the Federal Reserve to an automobile racing through a tunnel, bouncing off one wall, then the other.

Hi BMW...ok you might be wondering why i am persisting with this. I perfectly understand boucning modifies the car. I wanted to understand if the comma immediately after TUNNEL has any role to play.

Let me explain what I am asking.

What happens if instead of the CAR itself, I wanted to say something about the TUNNEL in this sentence? Let's say

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel [i]without any lights[/i]
Now - does the phrase WITHOUT ANY LIGHTS modify Automobile or Tunnel?

Sample another variant - Now I'll put a comma after Tunnel and use the same phrase

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, without any lights

Do you see what's happening and do you have an explanation.

To be honest, this confuses the hell out of me.

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, without any lights
hmm. i do not think you can connect an independent to a dependent clause with a preposition.

i can think of two ways to modify tunnel
has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel without any lights

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel, which was without any lights

has compared the FRB to an automobile racing through a tunnel that was without any lights

the purpose of the comma is to separate the independent clause, forming a complete sentence/independent clause before tacking on a participial phrase

OK - Let me restate my question. If "without any lights" can be made to modify tunnel, why does BOUNCING (in the original sentence) not modify it (tunnel)?

It's hard to believe just because "bouncing" is participial it will modify the "automobile"

I'm sorry for being so persistent.

i am not absolutely sure.

take the "single pronoun, double referent" situation in which only one referent can make sense in the entire context of the stem. that pronoun has a clear referent. it may apply to this situation as well.

by the way, i made a mistake in one of my sentences...catch it?

Never mind.. we'll figure it out someday.. just as we did the single pronoun double referent situation (nice nomenclature there!)

No I didn't spot any error..what was it?

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

Director
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 572

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 0

Location: NYC

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2007, 08:48
What I don't understand is how you can compare Fed to automobile racing.. Fed should be compared to automobile not automobile racing..
_________________

Success is my only option, failure is not -- Eminem

Kudos [?]: 76 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1438

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2007, 09:05
bewakoof wrote:
What I don't understand is how you can compare Fed to automobile racing.. Fed should be compared to automobile not automobile racing..

That's simple - the Fed is being compared to AN AUTOMOBILE RACING thruoug the tunnel ... not Automobile racing - which would be a noun.... The racing part in the original modifies the automobile - it's not to be treated along with Automobile as a noun phrase (automobile racing).

Kudos [?]: 226 [0], given: 13

25 Jul 2007, 09:05

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 30 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# One noted economist has made a comparison of the Federal

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.