GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 07 Aug 2020, 10:55

### 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

# Section 301 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2017
Posts: 85
GMAT 1: 570 Q49 V19

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2018, 00:52
jerrywu wrote:
Section 301 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act enables the United States Trade Representative to single out a country as an unfair trader, begin trade negotiations with that country, and, if the negotiations do not conclude by the United States government's being satisfied, to impose sanctions.

(A) by the United States government's being satisfied, to impose
(B) by the United States government's satisfaction, impose
(C) with the United States government's being satisfied, imposing
(D) to the United States government's satisfaction, impose
(E) to the United States government's satisfaction, imposing

Section 301 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act enables the United States Trade Representative to do ‘X’, ‘Y’ and ‘Z’

A - INCORRECT

1) ‘X’ and ‘Y’ use the active construction whereas ‘Z’ uses passive construction
2) Parallelism issue: to single| begin | to impose
3) ‘By’ – incorrect idiom

B - INCORRECT

1) By – incorrect idiom

C - INCORRECT

1) ‘X’ and ‘Y’ use the active construction whereas ‘Z’ uses passive construction
2) Parallelism issue: to single| begin | imposing

D – CORRECT

This uses the correct active form and more importantly uses the correct parallel structure
To (single| begin | impose)

E – INCORRECT

1) Parallelism issue: to single| begin | imposing
Manager
Joined: 23 Sep 2011
Posts: 94

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2018, 17:25
EducationAisle Thanks for the clarification!
_________________
1. Well Begun is Half done
2. He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever.
3. The night is darkest just before the dawn
Director
Joined: 06 Jan 2015
Posts: 793
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Finance
GPA: 3.35
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

28 Dec 2018, 21:15
jerrywu wrote:
Section 301 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act enables the United States Trade Representative to single out a country as an unfair trader, begin trade negotiations with that country, and, if the negotiations do not conclude by the United States government's being satisfied, to impose sanctions.

(C) with the United States government's being satisfied, imposing

(E) to the United States government's satisfaction, imposing

HI GMATNinja, mikemcgarry, egmat, DmitryFarber, MagooshExpert (Carolyn), ccooley, GMATGuruNY, EMPOWERgmatVerbal , EducationAisle

Can we eliminate the above two options based on the meaning that imposing -ing verb referring to the preceding clause and subject of that clause?

So here imposing refers to negotiations and negotiations cannot impose sanctions.

I know there is parallelism issue but I want to know is my above reason valid?
_________________
आत्मनॊ मोक्षार्थम् जगद्धिताय च

Resource: GMATPrep RCs With Solution
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1767

### Show Tags

29 Dec 2018, 10:52
NandishSS I wouldn't read it that way. It's hard to say exactly what a sentence means when it's wrong, but we should use the overall structure. We need "impose" to be parallel with "single out" and "begin." These are the actions that the OTCA enables. The "if" part is a modifier for the verb "impose," and not the other way around.
_________________

Dmitry Farber | Manhattan Prep GMAT Instructor | San Diego

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews
SVP
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 1992
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31

### Show Tags

04 Jan 2019, 07:22
Hi NandishSS, you seem to be suggesting that negotiations is the subject of the preceding clause. Actually the subject of the preceding clause is Section 301 (and not negotiations).

Nevertheless, we cannot interpret it in this manner for multiple reasons.

1) The structure you are referring to is:

Clause, present participial phrase.

For example: India won all the league matches, reaching the finals.

In this case however, the presence of and (and, if the negotiations…) precludes the possibility of interpreting C and E in the manner you have suggested.

2) In C and E, the barebones structure of the sentence is:

Section 301 enables United States to single out…, begin…, and imposing…

It is very clear that imposing is not parallel with single and begin.
_________________
Thanks,
Ashish
GMAT-99th Percentile, MBA - ISB Hyderabad
EducationAisle Online GMAT Classes

Sentence Correction Nirvana available on Amazon.in and Flipkart

Join us for a free GMAT Live Online Class from anywhere in the world
Intern
Joined: 08 Jan 2019
Posts: 1

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2019, 05:41
Hello,

I am stuck between answer B and D, what is the difference between the use of "by" or "to" please?
VP
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 1058

### Show Tags

30 Mar 2019, 18:40
by+noun can be used to show a method. but this pattern happen only in some idioms.
I go by plain.
there is no idiom like choice b.
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 9395

### Show Tags

14 Apr 2020, 18:20
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: Section 301 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness   [#permalink] 14 Apr 2020, 18:20

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 28 posts ]