With government funds no longer increasing and private philanthropy no

A. no longer able to carry the burden it once did - has no error here. Hence, (A) is the right answer choice.

B. no longer able to carry the burden it once had - when we are referring to an event/action/capability that used to occur (or be considered as true/active) in the past, we use the word 'did'. Since (B) uses 'had', eliminate (B)

C. able no longer to carry the burden which it had once - this indicates that the 'burden' was a one time event. (C) therefore shifts the focus from the intended meaning, which was to highlight the fact that "private philanthropy" was able to carry the burden on more than one occasion.

D. no longer having the ability of carrying the burden it once had - 'ability of' is not the right idiom structure. (the right idiom structure is : to have the ability to do something)

E. no longer with the ability of carrying the burden that it did once - 'ability of' is not the right idiom structure. (the right idiom structure is : to have the ability to do something)

A. no longer able to carry the burden it once did- No errors

B. no longer able to carry the burden it once had- use of had is incorrect

C. able no longer to carry the burden which it had once-use of which is incorrect

D. no longer having the ability of carrying the burden it once had- "ability of" is incorrect

E. no longer with the ability of carrying the burden that it did once- "ability of" is incorrect

With government funds no longer increasing and private philanthropy no longer able to carry the burden it once did, the major research universities are turning to the one likely source of additional funds: the major corporations.

and is used as parallel marker, B, C, D and E does not have parallel structure. So A is the answer

A. no longer able to carry the burden it once did

B. no longer able to carry the burden it once had

C. able no longer to carry the burden which it had once

D. no longer having the ability of carrying the burden it once had

E. no longer with the ability of carrying the burden that it did once

Research universities are now turning to major corporations because certain benefits that used to happen in the past, stopped. These things need to be denoted with proper past tense verb.

A. no longer able to carry the burden it once did: proper verb "did" denotes that the benefit no longer exists.CORRECT.

B.no longer able to carry the burden it once had: verb "had" incorrect here.INCORRECT.

C.able no longer to carry the burden which it had once : inappropriate verb usage.INCORRECT.

D.no longer having the ability of carrying the burden it once had: issues "having the ability" , "had"..INCORRECT.

E. no longer with the ability of carrying the burden that it did once : using both "did" and "once" is redundant in this context. Also option is unnecessarily wordy.INCORRECT.

Ans- A

Hope it's clear.
_________________

With government funds no longer increasing and private philanthropy no longer able to carry the burden it once did, the major research universities are turning to the one likely source of additional funds: the major corporations.


A. no longer able to carry the burden it once did -- CORRECT, "did" is a stand-in for action verb "carry"

B. no longer able to carry the burden it once had -- "had" is possessive verb here, not parallel with carry

C. able no longer to carry the burden which it had once -- same tense issue as B

D. no longer having the ability of carrying the burden it once had -- same as B and unnecessarily wordy

E. no longer with the ability of carrying the burden that it did once -- same as D, wordy

So, the answer is A

With government funds no longer increasing and private philanthropy no longer able to carry the burden it once did, the major research universities are turning to the one likely source of additional funds: the major corporations.

* Subject verb pair[ "philanthropy no longer able" ; "it did" ; " major research universities are "] - correct
* Tense form [ Present & Past ] - conveys intended meaning
* If-then condition - not used
* Subjunctive verb - not used
* Pronoun [ "it" has antecedent " philanthropy" ] - correct
* Modifier [ "With government funds"] - correctly used
* Comparison - not used
* Parallelism [ increasing "and" private philanthropy ] - correctly used
* Idioms [ "able to" ] - used correctly

All are seems okay so IMO(A)

A. no longer able to carry the burden it once did

- Corrects

B. no longer able to carry the burden it once had

- Incorrect usage of "had"

C. able no longer to carry the burden which it had once

- using "had" changed the meaning.

- Incorrect

D. no longer having the ability of carrying the burden it once had

- idiomatic error

E. no longer with the ability of carrying the burden that it did once

- Idiomatic error

Why "has" is not correct in (B)? 2 events are happening.

Hi GMATNinja and other experts - In this sentence I think 'Increasing' is playing the role of a gerund, can it be parallel to ' able to carry..." ? in D if we change 'of Carrying" to "to carry.." , can option D be right? is incorrect idiom the only problem with D?

Hi Anuragjn
The issue with option D is not just idiom but the subtle change of meaning.
"no longer having the ability of carrying the burden it once had"
What does this option trying to convey ?

So there was some burden earlier that private philanthropy was able to carry but now they don't have the ability to carry same burden.
Is this same burden are we talking about ?
No.

Now look at option A
private philanthropy "no longer able to carry the burden it once did"
Here meaning is more precise that PP are not able to carry the burden now as it once did sometime in past.

I would never rely on idiom as there are hundred's of them.
Eliminate definite error first then go for meaning.

Hope it helps
Let me know if you need further clarifications.

Can someone help me understand how option A has parallel elements?

Dear experts,

generis , Abhi077 , GMATNinja and mikemcgarry

Can you please explain the usage of with ?

Here with + [Noun] + [Participle] form is not used to describe anything. It rather tells an important phenomena causing the universities to turn to private organization for help.

https://gmatclub.com/forum/visitors-to-the-park-have-often-looked-up-into-the-leafy-canopy-and-51789.html#p1763187

https://magoosh.com/gmat/verbal/sentence-correction/with-noun-participle-on-gmat-sentence-correction/

Regards,
Arup Sarkar

Bunuel : Could you please change the tag as it is from official question pack.

Hello lakshya14,

I am not sure if you still have this doubt. Nonetheless, here is the answer.

When has/have/had is followed by another verb in the past participle form, then it acts as a perfect tense verb. For example:

• He has bought the tickets.
• He had bought the tickets before his friends arrived.
• They have bought the tickets.

When has/have/had is not followed by any other verb, then it acts as a simple tense verb. For example:

• He has the tickets.
• He had the tickets.
• They have the tickets.

In Choice B, the verb "had" is not followed by any other verb. Hence, it is the simple past tense verb. The usage of this verb is not correct because it presents possession. However, we need an action denoting verb to make it parallel to able to carry. Hence, the use of the verb "had" is incorrect in Choice B.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Hello jackky,

Thank you for the question.


The parallel elements in the original sentence are

With government funds no longer increasing and
(with) private philanthropy no longer able to carry the burden it once did

The two prepositional phrases staring with "with" are the perfect elements. These two factors explain why the major research universities are turning to the major corporations for funds.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Hello ArupRS,

Although your question is not for me, here is my response.

This question has a structure similar to the following correct official sentence:

With its network and the patience of its customers strained to the breaking point, the on-line service company announced a series of new initiatives to try to relieve the congestion that has led to at least four class-action lawsuits and thousands of complaints from frustrated customers.


Both these sentence presents the factors for some action mentioned in the main clause of the sentence. I am a bit reluctant to call these factors the reasons for the action in the main clause as these sentences do not use reason-presenting expressions. So, from the meaning perspective, I would say that the factors being around, certain entities took some actions in both these official sentences.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Here's the official explanation provided by the GMAC for this question:

This sentence reports an effect (universities turning to a new source of funding) resulting from two changes. Each of the changes is stated in terms of what is no longer happening, and the opening word with encompasses both of the no longer phrases. Answer choices C, D, and E all contain inept, unidiomatic wording. The wording in answer choice B differs from the original version only in using had where the original uses did. Did functions here as a pro-verb representing the verb carry. No longer able to carry the burden it once had makes sense, but it is a little odd. It implies that private philanthropy no longer has this burden. If it no longer has the burden, whether it can still carry it is irrelevant. To have a burden and to carry a burden typically do not mean quite the same thing. The burden it once had suggests that private philanthropy was burdened by the funding in the way that a person might be burdened.

Option A: Correct. This straightforwardly expresses a coherent meaning using standard forms of expression and appropriate verb forms. The two no longer constructions are appropriately parallel.

Option B: The problem with this version is subtle. The burden it once had implies that private philanthropy no longer has this burden. If it no longer has the burden, whether it can still carry it is irrelevant. To have a burden and to carry a burden typically do not mean quite the same thing. The burden it once had suggests that private philanthropy was burdened by the funding in the way that a person might be burdened.

Option C: This has the same subtle problem as answer choice B. Also, the burden which it had once is awkward and nonstandard. Placing once after the verb suggests that the author intends to say that it had the burden one single time, rather than that it used to have the burden. The word which is unnecessary.

Option D: Having the ability of carrying is awkward, verbose, and unidiomatic. Furthermore, this has the same subtle problem as answer choice B.

Option E: This is very awkward, wordy, and indirect. No longer with the ability of carrying is unidiomatic and unclear. Placing once after the verb suggests that the author intends to say that it carried the burden one single time, rather than that it used to carry the burden.

The correct answer is A.

Please note that I'm not the author of this explanation. I'm just posting it here since I believe it can help the community.

[quote="Bunuel"]With government funds no longer increasing and private philanthropy no longer able to carry the burden it once did, the major research universities are turning to the one likely source of additional funds: the major corporations.


A. no longer able to carry the burden it once did

B. no longer able to carry the burden it once had

C. able no longer to carry the burden which it had once

D. no longer having the ability of carrying the burden it once had

E. no longer with the ability of carrying the burden that it did once

I present 3 rules for solving comparison/ellipsis problems. we do not apply all 3 rules
1. check whether the similar entities of the 2 clauses have the same grammatical roles. this rule is the application of parallelism concept.
2. infer the cut off parts in the second clause. the cut off part must be appear in the first clause.
3. focus on the second verb of the second clause.

now I apply the above 3 rules.
look at choice b and c, we can infer what is cut off. after "it once had" , the cut off phrase must be "carry" or "to carry" but not "carried". the second clause is "it once had carry" or "it once had to carry". these are meaningless. we need "had carried" but "carried" dose not appear in the first clause. so choice b and c are gone

Can option B. no longer able to carry the burden it once had, interpreted as "the burden was at a particular point", instead of the actual meaning "that the capability of carrying the burden has reduced" since it uses "had"

With government funds no longer increasing and private philanthropy no longer able to carry the burden it once did, the major research universities are turning to the one likely source of additional funds: the major corporations.

'ability of' is unidiomatic; we need 'ability to'

'had is incorrect usage, suggesting that the universities at one point had the burden but no longer do.

Answer is A.

A. no longer able to carry the burden it once did

B. no longer able to carry the burden it once had

C. able no longer to carry the burden which it had once

D. no longer having the ability of carrying the burden it once had

E. no longer with the ability of carrying the burden that it did once