NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 10:54 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 10:54
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
   1   2   3   4   
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
L
ExpertsGlobal5
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Posts: 5123
Own Kudos [?]: 4683 [1]
Given Kudos: 38
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Send PM
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   17 Dec 2021, 06:00
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
VeritasKarishma wrote:
jabhatta2 wrote:
Hi VeritasKarishma - I know there are other mistakes but can A and B be eliminated for Comma + Arguing specifically ?

For example - if I were to say the following

Sam published his book, arguing for X and for Y.

Isn't this sentence in red I made up saying -- Sam published the book. In the book, Sam is arguing for X and Sam is arguing for Y (in the book)

Or would the sentence in red NOT convey my inteded meaning.


"comma + verb-ing" modifies the entire previous clause or the subject of the clause. So we could say that Mott is arguing, no issues.
But (A) and (B) are incorrect because of the way they are framed.

Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a treatise for women ...

The book is the treatise. We say she published her book and then modify it by saying "arguing in a treatise". Which "a treatise" are we taking about here? It is not clear that the book is the treatise we are talking about because Mott argued in "a treatise". Then we have combined two things that don't make much sense together.
She published a book. She argued in a treatise ...


Hi VeritasKarishma - Thank you for repsonding. I understand the blue. Wanted to focus on the pink specifically.

When i say the following : Sam published his book, arguing for X and for Y.

Does the sentence imply :
Sam published the book. In the book, Sam is arguing for X and Sam is arguing for Y - both topics X and Y are being argued in the book ?

OR is the meaning of the sentence completely different


Hello jabhatta2,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through your query, we believe we can resolve your doubt.

The meaning of the sentence you have provided is that Sam published his book, and in the process of doing so argued for X and Y; please remember, the introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “arguing” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.

To understand the concept of "Comma + Present Participles for Cause-Effect Relationships" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~3 minutes):


All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14823
Own Kudos [?]: 64916 [1]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   20 Dec 2021, 23:31
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
VeritasKarishma wrote:
jabhatta2 wrote:
Hi VeritasKarishma - I know there are other mistakes but can A and B be eliminated for Comma + Arguing specifically ?

For example - if I were to say the following

Sam published his book, arguing for X and for Y.

Isn't this sentence in red I made up saying -- Sam published the book. In the book, Sam is arguing for X and Sam is arguing for Y (in the book)

Or would the sentence in red NOT convey my inteded meaning.


"comma + verb-ing" modifies the entire previous clause or the subject of the clause. So we could say that Mott is arguing, no issues.
But (A) and (B) are incorrect because of the way they are framed.

Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a treatise for women ...

The book is the treatise. We say she published her book and then modify it by saying "arguing in a treatise". Which "a treatise" are we taking about here? It is not clear that the book is the treatise we are talking about because Mott argued in "a treatise". Then we have combined two things that don't make much sense together.
She published a book. She argued in a treatise ...


Hi VeritasKarishma - Thank you for repsonding. I understand the blue. Wanted to focus on the pink specifically.

When i say the following : Sam published his book, arguing for X and for Y.

Does the sentence imply :
Sam published the book. In the book, Sam is arguing for X and Sam is arguing for Y - both topics X and Y are being argued in the book ?

OR is the meaning of the sentence completely different


Yes, the meaning you suggest is correct. It does mean that in the book, Sam is arguing for X and for Y.
, + VERBing at the end of the clause can show an effect of what the clause tells us or can tell us more about what the clause tells us.
User avatar
D
Hoozan
Director
Director
Joined: 28 Sep 2018
Posts: 734
Own Kudos [?]: 559 [0]
Given Kudos: 248
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33 (Online)
GMAT 2: 700 Q49 V37
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   18 Jan 2022, 03:49
In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights and for changes in the married women’s property laws.

Meaning: In the year 1850, Lucretia Mott (LM) published something. What did she publish? She published her Discourse on Women. In this discourse, she argued for two things:
1. Equal political and legal rights for women AND
2. for changes in laws that dealt with married women's property


Sentence Structure:
In 1850 (Prepositional phrase modifying LM)
Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women (IC; LM - Subject; Published - Verb; her Discourse on Women - object of the sentence)
, arguing in a treatise (Verb-ing modifier)
for women to have equal political and legal rights (element 1 of parallelism)
and (parallel marker)
for changes in the married women’s property laws. (element 2 of parallelism)

Quote:
A. arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights
1. Modifier error - ",arguing" is a verb-ing modifier that modifies the previous clause. But This modification makes no sense. The argument is not the result of publishing the discourse. Based on the meaning analysis we know that the discourse is about arguing/demanding two things. (1. and 2. of meaning analysis)
2. Parallelism error - "for changes" is in the non-underlined part of the sentence. Hence we need an element before "and" that is parallel "for changes" Now, we know that the discourse is arguing for equal rights AND for changes. The discourse is not arguing for women per se. Hence, though we have two noun elements, this parallelism is incorrect.

Quote:
B. arguing in a treatise for equal political and legal rights for women

1. Error 1 of option A.
2. Error 2 of option A has been rectified. Now we have a clear parallelism between two entities "for equal right" and "for changes" separated by a parallel marker "and"

Quote:
C. a treatise that advocates women’s equal political and legal rights

1. Error 1. of option A has been rectified. Now we have a noun + noun modifier that modifies the previous noun "Discourse for women"
2. Error 2 of option A. We have a possessive noun "women's equal..." made parallel to a prepositional phrase "for changes". This is not grammatically correct.

Quote:
D. a treatise advocating women’s equal political and legal rights

1. Error 1. of option A has been rectified.
2. Error 2. of option B

Quote:
E. a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women

1. Error 1 of option A has been rectified.
2. Error 2 of option B has been rectified

Correct option: (E)

Noun + Noun Modifiers All you need to know about Noun + Noun modifiers - by egmat https://gmatclub.com/forum/noun-noun-mo ... 37292.html
User avatar
D
happypuppy
Manager
Manager
Joined: 29 Mar 2020
Posts: 220
Own Kudos [?]: 331 [0]
Given Kudos: 238
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
Schools: Stanford '25 (S) Booth '25 (S) Wharton '25 (S) ISB '24 (A) HBS '25 (D)
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38 (Online)
GPA: 3.5
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   22 Jan 2022, 03:48
stevegt wrote:
In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights and for changes in the married women’s property laws.

A. arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights
B. arguing in a treatise for equal political and legal rights for women
C. a treatise that advocates women’s equal political and legal rights
D. a treatise advocating women’s equal political and legal rights
E. a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women


The confusion is between B and E. Here's my reasoning:

B. arguing in a treatise for equal political and legal rights for women
- Usage of 'a treatise' makes it seem like it is not the same treatise that was published. Ex.
I wrote a book, arguing in a book for human rights.

E. a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women
This is correct, as 'a treatise' makes it clear that it is being talked about the 'Discourse on Women'. Ex:
I wrote a blog, an article that argued for human rights.
avatar
B
Mongyu
Intern
Intern
Joined: 29 Apr 2022
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 6
Send PM
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   30 Apr 2022, 03:14
what is the difference between "so ...as to" and "so...that"?
User avatar
L
EducationAisle
CEO
CEO
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 3675
Own Kudos [?]: 3528 [0]
Given Kudos: 149
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Send PM
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   30 Apr 2022, 06:32
Expert Reply
Mongyu wrote:
what is the difference between "so ...as to" and "so...that"?

This post answers this question.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses difference between "so ...as to" and "so...that", their application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.
User avatar
P
jabhatta2
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   13 May 2022, 09:07
KarishmaB - i thought (E) had a verb tense issue - specifically "Argued"

Reason - the book is obvously still arguing for equal rights and for changes.

In 2022 - if i was to open the book and read Discourse on Women - i am sure, the book if i read it today would today still be saying the same thing -- i.e. arguing for equal rights and for changes.

Did the book really stop arguing for equal rights and for changes ?

No - it would still be arguiing for equal rights and for changes

Hence i eliminated (E)

Could you assist
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14823
Own Kudos [?]: 64916 [1]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   15 May 2022, 22:38
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
KarishmaB - i thought (E) had a verb tense issue - specifically "Argued"

Reason - the book is obvously still arguing for equal rights and for changes.

In 2022 - if i was to open the book and read Discourse on Women - i am sure, the book if i read it today would today still be saying the same thing -- i.e. arguing for equal rights and for changes.

Did the book really stop arguing for equal rights and for changes ?

No - it would still be arguiing for equal rights and for changes

Hence i eliminated (E)

Could you assist


jabhatta2
The problem is - what did you pick as your answer then?
Since we are not allowed to write our own sentences, we must make do with what is given even if we prefer to write it in another way.

My focus here is on history, not on what the book says.
So I say, "In 1850, Mott published her book that talked about ..."
Whether the book still exists/is accessible etc, we don't know. We are talking about what happened in 1850.

If my focus is on the book today, I will say, "Mott's book says ...."

So I wouldn't eliminate any option based on whether present tense is used or past tense is used. I will see what the options have to offer.
User avatar
B
Dinesh654
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2021
Status:In learning mode...
Posts: 156
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [0]
Given Kudos: 217
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   16 May 2022, 05:28
Hello experts, MartyTargetTestPrep
Between B and E.

Why B is wrong,?
MOtt is arguing in a treatise- which is perfectly fine!

In E, How can a treatise can argue itself, its the author who argues in the treatise, the right construction is B

still I chose E, intuitively!
User avatar
L
ExpertsGlobal5
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Posts: 5123
Own Kudos [?]: 4683 [0]
Given Kudos: 38
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Send PM
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   16 May 2022, 05:47
Expert Reply
dcoolguy wrote:
Hello experts, MartyTargetTestPrep
Between B and E.

Why B is wrong,?
MOtt is arguing in a treatise- which is perfectly fine!

In E, How can a treatise can argue itself, its the author who argues in the treatise, the right construction is B

still I chose E, intuitively!


Hello dcoolguy,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, as we have explained elsewhere in this thread, a "treatise" can indeed be said to "argue" something, even though it is a non-living thing. This is known as anthropomorphization, giving the traits of a living thing to a non-living thing; this is a minor example of figurative or abstract language and is perfectly permissible on the GMAT. For example, "The letter said John misses you."

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
B
Dinesh654
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2021
Status:In learning mode...
Posts: 156
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [0]
Given Kudos: 217
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   16 May 2022, 06:11
ExpertsGlobal5 wrote:
dcoolguy wrote:
Hello experts, MartyTargetTestPrep
Between B and E.

Why B is wrong,?
MOtt is arguing in a treatise- which is perfectly fine!

In E, How can a treatise can argue itself, its the author who argues in the treatise, the right construction is B

still I chose E, intuitively!


Hello dcoolguy,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, as we have explained elsewhere in this thread, a "treatise" can indeed be said to "argue" something, even though it is a non-living thing. This is known as anthropomorphization, giving the traits of a living thing to a non-living thing; this is a minor example of figurative or abstract language and is perfectly permissible on the GMAT. For example, "The letter said John misses you."

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team


Thanks,
understood, but what are the things (non living) that comes under this and what not?
because at the same time we say GMAT is an exam to test logic,
here it is contradicting itself.
Since there are many examples in which non living performing an action of living is considered illogical.

So how can we characterise as to what is acceptable and what not?
also I asked why B is wrong? but you only explained E.
User avatar
P
jabhatta2
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   16 May 2022, 06:38
GMATGuruNY IanStewart - i thought (E) had a verb tense issue - specifically "Argued"

Reason - the book is obvously still arguing for equal rights and for changes.

In 2022 - if i was to open the book and read Discourse on Women - i am sure, the book if i read it today would today still be saying the same thing -- i.e. arguing for equal rights and for changes.

Did the book really stop arguing for equal rights and for changes ?

No - it would still be arguiing for equal rights and for changes

Hence i eliminated (E)

Could you assist
User avatar
D
GMATGuruNY
Tutor
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 1315
Own Kudos [?]: 3136 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Send PM
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 16 May 2022, 15:02
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
GMATGuruNY IanStewart - i thought (E) had a verb tense issue - specifically "Argued"

Reason - the book is obvously still arguing for equal rights and for changes.

In 2022 - if i was to open the book and read Discourse on Women - i am sure, the book if i read it today would today still be saying the same thing -- i.e. arguing for equal rights and for changes.

Did the book really stop arguing for equal rights and for changes ?

No - it would still be arguiing for equal rights and for changes

Hence i eliminated (E)

Could you assist


OA: In 1850, Lucretia Mott published a treatise that argued for changes in married women’s property laws.
The phrase in blue refers to THE LAWS OF 1850, when the treatise was published.
It would be illogical to say that the treatise argues -- IN THE PRESENT -- for changes in laws that were in effect over 100 years ago (very much IN THE PAST).

Originally posted by GMATGuruNY on 16 May 2022, 13:47.
Last edited by GMATGuruNY on 16 May 2022, 15:02, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
P
jabhatta2
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   16 May 2022, 14:27
GMATGuruNY wrote:
OE: In 1850, Lucretia Mott published a treatise that argued for changes in married women’s property laws.
The phrase in blue refers to THE LAWS OF 1850, when the treatise was published.
It would be illogical to say that the treatise argues -- IN THE PRESENT -- for changes in laws that were in effect over 100 years ago (very much IN THE PAST).


Hi GMATGuruNY - really dumb q i am sure but why is illogical to say that though ?

If i was to open the book today - i am sure the book is still making the case (Arguing) for changes to be made.

Whether the changes were actually made / not made || when the changes came into effect == i thought were secondary
User avatar
D
GMATGuruNY
Tutor
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Posts: 1315
Own Kudos [?]: 3136 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Send PM
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   16 May 2022, 15:01
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
If i was to open the book today - i am sure the book is still making the case (Arguing) for changes to be made.

Whether the changes were actually made / not made || when the changes came into effect == i thought were secondary


The treatise argues for changes in women's property laws.
Here -- because the main verb is in the present tense -- the phrase in red seems to refer to laws that are CURRENTLY IN EFFECT.
Not the intended meaning.
In the US, we no longer have "women's property laws."
The laws for men and women are the same.
Hence, the usage of the present tense distorts the intended meaning.

Regardless, the usage of argued in the OA is perfectly logical, so tense cannot serve as a reason to eliminate E.
User avatar
P
jabhatta2
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1374
Own Kudos [?]: 207 [0]
Given Kudos: 189
Send PM
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 17 May 2022, 14:46
Hi AjiteshArun ReedArnoldMPREP DmitryFarber
- i have asked quite a few contributors but not sure i fully understand. was curious on your thoughts as well

- i thought (E) had a verb tense issue - specifically "Argued"

Reason - the treatise is doing something timeless - which is arguing for equal rights and for changes.

In 2022 - if i was to open the book and read Discourse on Women - i am sure, the book if i read it today or in the future, the book would be doing the same thing -- i.e. arguing for equal rights and for changes.

Did the book really stop arguing for equal rights and for changes (hence the preferance for the simple past tense) ?

No based on common sense.- it would still be arguing for equal rights and for changes

How then does "Argued" make any sense ?

Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 16 May 2022, 18:13.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 17 May 2022, 14:46, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
L
ExpertsGlobal5
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Posts: 5123
Own Kudos [?]: 4683 [0]
Given Kudos: 38
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Send PM
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   17 May 2022, 01:12
Expert Reply
dcoolguy wrote:
ExpertsGlobal5 wrote:
dcoolguy wrote:
Hello experts, MartyTargetTestPrep
Between B and E.

Why B is wrong,?
MOtt is arguing in a treatise- which is perfectly fine!

In E, How can a treatise can argue itself, its the author who argues in the treatise, the right construction is B

still I chose E, intuitively!


Hello dcoolguy,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, as we have explained elsewhere in this thread, a "treatise" can indeed be said to "argue" something, even though it is a non-living thing. This is known as anthropomorphization, giving the traits of a living thing to a non-living thing; this is a minor example of figurative or abstract language and is perfectly permissible on the GMAT. For example, "The letter said John misses you."

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team


Thanks,
understood, but what are the things (non living) that comes under this and what not?
because at the same time we say GMAT is an exam to test logic,
here it is contradicting itself.
Since there are many examples in which non living performing an action of living is considered illogical.

So how can we characterise as to what is acceptable and what not?
also I asked why B is wrong? but you only explained E.


Hello dcoolguy,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, such distinctions are largely idiomatic - for example, we can say that a fire is "dying"; what matters is whether the verb can logically refer to a function that the non-living thing performs; in this case, a "treatise" can be said to "argue" because it is a written document, a record of thoughts.

Further, Option B alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "arguing in a treatise" the use of the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing"- “arguing” in this case)" construction incorrectly implies that Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, and in doing so argued for equal political and legal rights for women; the intended meaning is that Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, and it is a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women; please remember, the introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “arguing” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
B
Vegita
Manager
Manager
Joined: 23 May 2020
Posts: 97
Own Kudos [?]: 10 [0]
Given Kudos: 1531
Send PM
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   30 Jul 2023, 09:21
Experts

Shouldn't "Discourse on Women" be slanted, if it is a publication?
User avatar
L
EducationAisle
CEO
CEO
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 3675
Own Kudos [?]: 3528 [1]
Given Kudos: 149
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Send PM
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   30 Jul 2023, 09:24
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Vegita wrote:
Shouldn't "Discourse on Women" be slanted, if it is a publication?

Indeed; it should be and it is, in the OG.
User avatar
B
Danish234
Intern
Intern
Joined: 08 Feb 2022
Posts: 19
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 44
Send PM
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink] New post   28 Oct 2023, 07:13
Experts help I still don't see how we get to the conclusion that the Discourse on Women is what needs to be modified and not Mott.
Mott can still argue in a book or a paper right??
How do I know that the book is the one doing the arguing and not Mott?
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a [#permalink]
28 Oct 2023, 07:13
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions