Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 10:25 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 10:25
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   
User avatar
mSKR
User avatar
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,290
Own Kudos:
938
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,290
Kudos: 938
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 29 Jun 2020, 22:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exemptions permitting pilots of small turboprop aircraft at small carriers to fly 5 more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines do,
1. 5 = as many as 20 percent or as much as 20 percent .
Should not we use as much as 20% as percent is not countable.( example: His height is 5% more than him. I would not say his height is 5% many than him)
2. aircraft at small carriers to fly 5 more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines do
Why ? do = to fly [ To fly is not used as a verb to be replaced with do]
He asked his players to run faster than others.
I would not say : he asked his players to run faster than others run.


please suggest ,i am still not able to reach at option E based on above 2 queries :
EMPOWERgmatVerbal VeritasPrepBrian Skywalker18 daagh DmitryFarber egmat
User avatar
daagh
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Last visit: 16 Oct 2020
Posts: 5,264
Own Kudos:
42,418
 [1]
Given Kudos: 422
Status: enjoying
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 5,264
Kudos: 42,418
 [1]
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 29 Jun 2020, 22:37
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
1. The percent is countable. one percent, two percent; the percentage is non-countable because it is a ratio.
2. Please note that when you compare active actions, it is necessary to mention the action( namely 'run" ) in the second part also.
User avatar
CrackverbalGMAT
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,844
Own Kudos:
8,945
 [1]
Given Kudos: 225
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Location: India
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,844
Kudos: 8,945
 [1]
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 30 Jun 2020, 22:10
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi experts,

I understand how we got to the right answer using the comparison and parallelism errors, but one thing I am unable to wrap my head around is the "and consequently" part of the sentence in option (e).

I inferred the meaning as the exemption reducing time for pilots at smaller airlines and as a consequence of this the airlines will have to hire new pilots. However, the usage of "and consequently" does not seem to suggest that.

Would really appreciate if you could help me with where I am going wrong in understanding this.

Thanks!
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________


Hi ShivanshAggarwal,

Meaning and logic are paramount. In this sentence too, the overall meaning of the sentence plays an important part in arriving at the best option.

The sentence means that till now, the small carriers had the advantage of being able to make their pilots fly more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines are made to fly. This exemption (which may be understood as a privilege or consideration that was granted to them) may now be taken away from the smaller airlines/carriers, because of which the smaller airlines may have to hire more pilots.

The word ‘consequently’ does adequately convey the idea that the airlines will have to hire new pilots as a result of the revoking of the exemption. So, the sentence states that the exemption may be taken away from the smaller airlines and Option E correctly uses the conjunction ‘and’ to add the idea that this brings about a consequence(having to hire more pilots).

Jayanthi Kumar.
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,489
Kudos: 2,387
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 13 Oct 2020, 12:55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exemptions permitting pilots of small turboprop aircraft at small carriers to fly as much as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines fly, with the consequence that some carriers could be forced to hire additional pilots.

A. as much as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines fly, with the consequence that
B. as many as 20 percent more hours per month as pilots at larger airlines, and
C. more hours per month, as much as 20 percent, than pilots at larger airlines; consequently
D. as much as 20 percent more hours per month as larger airlines' pilots, so
E. as many as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines do, and consequently
Show more
Request Expert Reply:

I don't know why there is a DO in choice E!
In E, we used DO as a pro-verb. In the non-underlined part, 'to fly' is not a verb; it is 'infinitive', unfortunately. So, how did we use DO instead of 'to fly'?
Appreciating your help, experts!
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,784
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,784
 [1]
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 18 Nov 2020, 15:13
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TheUltimateWinner
Quote:
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exemptions permitting pilots of small turboprop aircraft at small carriers to fly as much as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines fly, with the consequence that some carriers could be forced to hire additional pilots.

A. as much as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines fly, with the consequence that
B. as many as 20 percent more hours per month as pilots at larger airlines, and
C. more hours per month, as much as 20 percent, than pilots at larger airlines; consequently
D. as much as 20 percent more hours per month as larger airlines' pilots, so
E. as many as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines do, and consequently
Request Expert Reply:

I don't know why there is a DO in choice E!
In E, we used DO as a pro-verb. In the non-underlined part, 'to fly' is not a verb; it is 'infinitive', unfortunately. So, how did we use DO instead of 'to fly'?
Appreciating your help, experts!
Show more
As long as it's clear what action "do" represents, it's fine. Consider an example:

    In the future, Tim would like his children to eat fewer dog biscuits than they currently do.

You probably had no problem understanding the meaning of this sentence -- the "do" is a stand-in for the verb "eat." While it's true that "to eat" functions differently than the simple verb form, it also provides context for how "do" functions. That's perfectly acceptable.

Similarly, in (E), because we can easily figure out that "do" means "fly," it's okay. There's no concrete rule about what actions a helping verb can stand in for, so we have to rely on logic and context. If you're unsure if the helping verb is okay, look for other issues to evaluate.

I hope that helps!
avatar
thereisaFire
avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2020
Last visit: 12 Aug 2022
Posts: 72
Own Kudos:
14
Given Kudos: 209
Location: India
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V30
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V30
Posts: 72
Kudos: 14
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 02 Jun 2021, 10:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja AjiteshArun egmat

Will there be any comparison error, if "do" is omitted in choice E.
Edited verison:
as many as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines do, and consequently
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 02 Jun 2021, 21:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
thereisaFire
GMATNinja AjiteshArun egmat

Will there be any comparison error, if "do" is omitted in choice E.
Edited verison:
as many as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines do, and consequently
Show more
Hi thereisaFire,

I generally view this as a preference call. That is, dropping a do does not lead to an absolute error, but may create meaning clarity issues. Here's option E without a do:

... permitting pilots... at small carriers to fly as many as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines... ← This could be read as either "Xs fly more hours per month than Ys fly" OR "Xs fly more hours per month than they fly Ys".

Keep in mind that ambiguity of meaning is not an absolute error, so when we see an option like this, we should first check for other, more important issues.
avatar
thereisaFire
avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2020
Last visit: 12 Aug 2022
Posts: 72
Own Kudos:
14
Given Kudos: 209
Location: India
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V30
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V30
Posts: 72
Kudos: 14
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 02 Jun 2021, 23:44
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AjiteshArun
thereisaFire
GMATNinja AjiteshArun egmat

Will there be any comparison error, if "do" is omitted in choice E.
Edited verison:
as many as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines do, and consequently
Hi thereisaFire,

I generally view this as a preference call. That is, dropping a do does not lead to an absolute error, but may create meaning clarity issues. Here's option E without a do:

... permitting pilots... at small carriers to fly as many as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines... ← This could be read as either "Xs fly more hours per month than Ys fly" OR "Xs fly more hours per month than they fly Ys".

Keep in mind that ambiguity of meaning is not an absolute error, so when we see an option like this, we should first check for other, more important issues.
Show more

Thanks for responding.

I understand that there can be meaning ambiguity.

However, in this specific question, does the second meaning even exist?
"Xs fly more hours per month than they fly Ys"

Let us take an example,
A runs faster than B.

S1: A runs faster than B does. (The only interpretation)
S2: A runs faster than A runs B. (Non-sensical)

Only S1 conveys the logical meaning and hence even if we remove does the sentence clearly conveys the meaning.

In a similar manner, the sentence "Xs fly more hours per month than they fly Ys" means than one pilot is flying the other pilot. I think one pilot can only fly a plane and not other pilot. Hence, this interpretation sounds a little less convincing.

Therefore, removing do from option choice E should not engender any meaning ambiguity as there is only one meaning that can be concluded.

This was my understanding. Happy to hear your thoughts on this.
User avatar
Jarvis07
User avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2017
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 295
Own Kudos:
236
Given Kudos: 160
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
Posts: 295
Kudos: 236
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 03 Jun 2021, 04:53
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello Experts MartyTargetTestPrep, GMATNinja, GMATGuruNY, AjiteshArun, generis, @MentorTutoring, @EducationAisle;
In OG, it says that: "consequence" is wrongly assigned to the extra flying time rather than
to the ending of the exemption -- a logical prediction error.
I am confused because when you consider the participle phrase, "long-standing exemptions... airlines fly", to me, it seems to be referring to the entire event.
Will you please help.
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,511
 [3]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,511
 [3]
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 03 Jun 2021, 11:12
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
pranjalpathak07
Hello Experts MartyTargetTestPrep, GMATNinja, GMATGuruNY, AjiteshArun, generis, @MentorTutoring, @EducationAisle;
In OG, it says that: "consequence" is wrongly assigned to the extra flying time rather than
to the ending of the exemption -- a logical prediction error.
I am confused because when you consider the participle phrase, "long-standing exemptions... airlines fly", to me, it seems to be referring to the entire event.
Will you please help.
Show more
Hello, pranjalpathak07. I think you are referring to the original sentence, which I will quote below for reference.

Quote:
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exemptions permitting pilots of small turboprop aircraft at small carriers to fly as much as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines fly, with the consequence that some carriers could be forced to hire additional pilots.
Show more
Let me say right away that I am no fan of the OG "logical predication" label. I can think of zero cases in which I have ever approached a question with "logical predication" in mind; neither have I seen any other Expert on this site explain a question in such terms, except when quoting the OG. That said, we do have to ask ourselves whether the with prepositional phrase is meant to comment on the entire sentence up to that point or on just the tail-end of it, specifically the comparison centered on monthly flying hours. Consider:

1) Some pilots fly more than others, with the consequence that...

2) Regulators may end certain exemptions, with the consequence that...

Since the prepositional phrase is closer to the comparison, we cannot ignore the first interpretation above and simply say that we prefer the second. Notice how (E) sidesteps the issue. The prepositional phrase has been replaced by an adverb, consequently, that is understood to comment on the entire clause, similar to framing a sentence with basically or typically. Still, if you have trouble wrapping your head around the role consequently may be playing, you could temporarily remove it from the sentence to see how the larger pieces fit together:

(E) Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exemptions permitting pilots of small turboprop aircraft at small carriers to fly as many as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines do, and consequently some carriers could be forced to hire additional pilots.

The second independent clause follows the first seamlessly, with or without the adverb—regulators will probably do something, and some carriers may react a certain way.

One final point I would like to mention is that, as is often the case in SC questions, this one presents several points of consideration that can be used to reduce the answer pool. Other Experts have drawn attention to such considerations in their posts above. I would simply like to point out that you need not fixate on any given split if another, perhaps easier, target presents itself elsewhere (e.g., the as much as versus as many as split, which could help you eliminate the original sentence prior to the prepositional phrase in question).

I hope that helps address your concerns. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew (formerly known as MentorTutoring)
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [1]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [1]
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 03 Jun 2021, 19:07
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
thereisaFire
Thanks for responding.

I understand that there can be meaning ambiguity.

However, in this specific question, does the second meaning even exist?
"Xs fly more hours per month than they fly Ys"

Let us take an example,
A runs faster than B.

S1: A runs faster than B does. (The only interpretation)
S2: A runs faster than A runs B. (Non-sensical)

Only S1 conveys the logical meaning and hence even if we remove does the sentence clearly conveys the meaning.

In a similar manner, the sentence "Xs fly more hours per month than they fly Ys" means than one pilot is flying the other pilot. I think one pilot can only fly a plane and not other pilot. Hence, this interpretation sounds a little less convincing.

Therefore, removing do from option choice E should not engender any meaning ambiguity as there is only one meaning that can be concluded.

This was my understanding. Happy to hear your thoughts on this.
Show more
Hi thereisaFire,

It exists, but we wouldn't really expect anyone to read the sentence that way. :)

Generally speaking, this kind of ambiguity arises when we have nouns all around the than. Your example doesn't use a noun before the than, and that's why dropping the does doesn't lead to ambiguity. However, if we choose to use a noun, we will force the reader to take a call. For example:

1. He spoke more about politics than his friend.

Does this mean
1a. He spoke more about politics than (he spoke about) his friend. [A spoke more about X than Y] ← Here the comparison is between how much he spoke about politics and how much he spoke about his friend.
or
1b. He spoke more about politics than his friend (spoke about politics). [A spoke more about X than B] ← Here the comparison is between how much he spoke about politics and how much his friend spoke about politics.
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [1]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [1]
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 01 Nov 2021, 21:46
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sid0791
In this option, "do" should refer to "fly", but here we have "to fly"
Show more
Hi sid0791,

You're right: to fly is an infinitive. However, the type of do that we see here can refer to the verb form inside the infinitive.
avatar
Varane
avatar
Joined: 24 Mar 2022
Last visit: 16 Dec 2022
Posts: 66
Own Kudos:
6
Given Kudos: 471
Posts: 66
Kudos: 6
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 15 May 2022, 00:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Is there a mistake in A also in the part where "with the consequence that" is used.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,195
Own Kudos:
4,765
 [1]
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,195
Kudos: 4,765
 [1]
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 15 May 2022, 03:52
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Varane
Is there a mistake in A also in the part where "with the consequence that" is used.

Posted from my mobile device
Show more

Hello Varane,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, the use of the phrase "with the consequence that" is not an error in Option A.

The phrase "with the result/consequence that" can be linked by a comma to a clause to refer to the outcome of the action described in the clause.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
woohoo921
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2020
Last visit: 17 Mar 2023
Posts: 516
Own Kudos:
142
Given Kudos: 623
Posts: 516
Kudos: 142
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 26 Aug 2022, 19:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AndrewN
pranjalpathak07
Hello Experts MartyTargetTestPrep, GMATNinja, GMATGuruNY, AjiteshArun, generis, @MentorTutoring, @EducationAisle;
In OG, it says that: "consequence" is wrongly assigned to the extra flying time rather than
to the ending of the exemption -- a logical prediction error.
I am confused because when you consider the participle phrase, "long-standing exemptions... airlines fly", to me, it seems to be referring to the entire event.
Will you please help.
Hello, pranjalpathak07. I think you are referring to the original sentence, which I will quote below for reference.

Quote:
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exemptions permitting pilots of small turboprop aircraft at small carriers to fly as much as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines fly, with the consequence that some carriers could be forced to hire additional pilots.
Let me say right away that I am no fan of the OG "logical predication" label. I can think of zero cases in which I have ever approached a question with "logical predication" in mind; neither have I seen any other Expert on this site explain a question in such terms, except when quoting the OG. That said, we do have to ask ourselves whether the with prepositional phrase is meant to comment on the entire sentence up to that point or on just the tail-end of it, specifically the comparison centered on monthly flying hours. Consider:

1) Some pilots fly more than others, with the consequence that...

2) Regulators may end certain exemptions, with the consequence that...

Since the prepositional phrase is closer to the comparison, we cannot ignore the first interpretation above and simply say that we prefer the second. Notice how (E) sidesteps the issue. The prepositional phrase has been replaced by an adverb, consequently, that is understood to comment on the entire clause, similar to framing a sentence with basically or typically. Still, if you have trouble wrapping your head around the role consequently may be playing, you could temporarily remove it from the sentence to see how the larger pieces fit together:

(E) Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exemptions permitting pilots of small turboprop aircraft at small carriers to fly as many as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines do, and consequently some carriers could be forced to hire additional pilots.

The second independent clause follows the first seamlessly, with or without the adverb—regulators will probably do something, and some carriers may react a certain way.

One final point I would like to mention is that, as is often the case in SC questions, this one presents several points of consideration that can be used to reduce the answer pool. Other Experts have drawn attention to such considerations in their posts above. I would simply like to point out that you need not fixate on any given split if another, perhaps easier, target presents itself elsewhere (e.g., the as much as versus as many as split, which could help you eliminate the original sentence prior to the prepositional phrase in question).

I hope that helps address your concerns. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew (formerly known as MentorTutoring)
Show more

AndrewN

Thank you for your helpful explanation. To clarify my understanding of the sentence structure for the correct answer (E), is the ",and consequently" an example of a comma conjunction independent clause?
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,195
Own Kudos:
4,765
 [1]
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,195
Kudos: 4,765
 [1]
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 29 Aug 2022, 04:15
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
woohoo921
AndrewN
pranjalpathak07
Hello Experts MartyTargetTestPrep, GMATNinja, GMATGuruNY, AjiteshArun, generis, @MentorTutoring, @EducationAisle;
In OG, it says that: "consequence" is wrongly assigned to the extra flying time rather than
to the ending of the exemption -- a logical prediction error.
I am confused because when you consider the participle phrase, "long-standing exemptions... airlines fly", to me, it seems to be referring to the entire event.
Will you please help.
Hello, pranjalpathak07. I think you are referring to the original sentence, which I will quote below for reference.

Quote:
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exemptions permitting pilots of small turboprop aircraft at small carriers to fly as much as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines fly, with the consequence that some carriers could be forced to hire additional pilots.
Let me say right away that I am no fan of the OG "logical predication" label. I can think of zero cases in which I have ever approached a question with "logical predication" in mind; neither have I seen any other Expert on this site explain a question in such terms, except when quoting the OG. That said, we do have to ask ourselves whether the with prepositional phrase is meant to comment on the entire sentence up to that point or on just the tail-end of it, specifically the comparison centered on monthly flying hours. Consider:

1) Some pilots fly more than others, with the consequence that...

2) Regulators may end certain exemptions, with the consequence that...

Since the prepositional phrase is closer to the comparison, we cannot ignore the first interpretation above and simply say that we prefer the second. Notice how (E) sidesteps the issue. The prepositional phrase has been replaced by an adverb, consequently, that is understood to comment on the entire clause, similar to framing a sentence with basically or typically. Still, if you have trouble wrapping your head around the role consequently may be playing, you could temporarily remove it from the sentence to see how the larger pieces fit together:

(E) Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exemptions permitting pilots of small turboprop aircraft at small carriers to fly as many as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines do, and consequently some carriers could be forced to hire additional pilots.

The second independent clause follows the first seamlessly, with or without the adverb—regulators will probably do something, and some carriers may react a certain way.

One final point I would like to mention is that, as is often the case in SC questions, this one presents several points of consideration that can be used to reduce the answer pool. Other Experts have drawn attention to such considerations in their posts above. I would simply like to point out that you need not fixate on any given split if another, perhaps easier, target presents itself elsewhere (e.g., the as much as versus as many as split, which could help you eliminate the original sentence prior to the prepositional phrase in question).

I hope that helps address your concerns. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew (formerly known as MentorTutoring)

AndrewN

Thank you for your helpful explanation. To clarify my understanding of the sentence structure for the correct answer (E), is the ",and consequently" an example of a comma conjunction independent clause?
Show more

Hello woohoo921,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, yes; your understanding is correct: here, "and consequently" is a conjunctive phrase, and it is used alongside the comma to join two independent clauses.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,489
Kudos: 2,387
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 22 Nov 2022, 12:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exemptions permitting pilots of small turboprop aircraft at small carriers to fly as much as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines fly, with the consequence that some carriers could be forced to hire additional pilots.

A. as much as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines fly, with the consequence that
B. as many as 20 percent more hours per month as pilots at larger airlines, and
C. more hours per month, as much as 20 percent, than pilots at larger airlines; consequently
D. as much as 20 percent more hours per month as larger airlines’ pilots, so
E. as many as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines do, and consequently
Show more
Request Expert Reply:
Hi RonPurewal, GMATGuruNY, GMATNinja, AjiteshArun,
Can you help me to find the 'ellipsis' part, please? I mean what we are referring for pro-verb 'do' in choice E?
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,195
Own Kudos:
4,765
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,195
Kudos: 4,765
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 23 Nov 2022, 04:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TheUltimateWinner
Quote:
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exemptions permitting pilots of small turboprop aircraft at small carriers to fly as much as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines fly, with the consequence that some carriers could be forced to hire additional pilots.

A. as much as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines fly, with the consequence that
B. as many as 20 percent more hours per month as pilots at larger airlines, and
C. more hours per month, as much as 20 percent, than pilots at larger airlines; consequently
D. as much as 20 percent more hours per month as larger airlines’ pilots, so
E. as many as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines do, and consequently
Request Expert Reply:
Hi RonPurewal, GMATGuruNY, GMATNinja, AjiteshArun,
Can you help me to find the 'ellipsis' part, please? I mean what we are referring for pro-verb 'do' in choice E?
Show more

Hello TheUltimateWinner,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, in Option E, "do" refers to the verb "fly".

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,489
Kudos: 2,387
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 01 Dec 2022, 12:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ExpertsGlobal5
TheUltimateWinner
Quote:
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exemptions permitting pilots of small turboprop aircraft at small carriers to fly as much as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines fly, with the consequence that some carriers could be forced to hire additional pilots.

A. as much as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines fly, with the consequence that
B. as many as 20 percent more hours per month as pilots at larger airlines, and
C. more hours per month, as much as 20 percent, than pilots at larger airlines; consequently
D. as much as 20 percent more hours per month as larger airlines’ pilots, so
E. as many as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines do, and consequently
Request Expert Reply:
Hi RonPurewal, GMATGuruNY, GMATNinja, AjiteshArun,
Can you help me to find the 'ellipsis' part, please? I mean what we are referring for pro-verb 'do' in choice E?

Hello TheUltimateWinner,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, in Option E, "do" refers to the verb "fly".

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
Show more
Thanks for the response. But, the sentence says it is to fly (not fly). We use do in stead of another verb, to fly is not a verb; it is infinitive, unfortunately. Can you clarify what's going on here GMATNinja AjiteshArun GMATGuruNY?
User avatar
GMATGuruNY
User avatar
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,344
Own Kudos:
3,796
 [1]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,344
Kudos: 3,796
 [1]
Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt 01 Dec 2022, 13:32
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TheUltimateWinner
to fly is not a verb
Show more

This statement is misleading: TO + VERB is in fact a verb form.
Proof:
John began to wash the car.
Here, the car is the DIRECT OBJECT for to wash.
Since only a verb form can take a direct object, to wash -- an infinitive -- is correctly considered a verb form.
Implication:
does/do/did can stand in for an infinitive, just as these words can stand in for any other verb form.

Note:
Even though TO + VERB is a verb form, it may not serve as the main verb for an independent clause.
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts