Section 301 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness

Question

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

(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

anairamitch1804 · Accepted Answer

This question is testing PARALLELISM. 
We have a list structure, so we need to make sure all of the elements in our list are parallel. Whenever we have a list with infinitives, we have two options:

1) Use the "to" every time: I like to dance, to sing, and to paint

2) Use the "to" only for the first list element. It is implied that it will apply to all other list elements: I like to dance, sing, and paint.

We are NOT allowed to drop the "to" for the 2nd element, then bring it back for the third: 
I like to dance, sing, and to paint.

In this sentence, our list is: 
Section 301 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act enables the United States Trade Representative to: 
a) single out a country as an unfair trader, 
b) begin trade negotiation with that country, and, (if the negotiations do not conclude by the United States government’s being satisfied,) 
c) to impose sanctions.

The third list item does not match. We cannot use the "to" again, since we didn't use it with "begin."

A. by the United States government’s being satisfied, to impose 
We can't use "to." Incorrect.

B. by the United States government’s satisfaction, impose 
Correct continuation of "to single..., begin..., and impose," but wrong idiom usage. We can't say "by one's satisfaction." We say "to one's satisfaction."

C. with the United States government’s being satisfied, imposing 
Not parallel

D. to the United States government’s satisfaction, impose 
Correct parallelism, correct idiom.

E. to the United States government’s satisfaction, imposing 
Not parallel

Section 301 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act enables the United States Trade
Representative to single ( I element of list)out a country as an unfair trader, begin( II element) trade negotiations with that
country, and, if the negotiations do not conclude by the United States governmentâ€™s being satisfied,
to impose (III element, which is not parallel with the earlier two) sanctions.
 
So we need “IMPOSE” to make list parallel
This leaves us with B and D.

Now when we add preposition “by” after “conclude”, it suggests that the action of conclusion is performed by someone. It turns the structure to passive form. Moreover, the correct passive form is “is/was/are/were concluded”. Hence, “conclude by the US government’s satisfaction” is ungrammatical.
The correct idiom is “conclude to the US government’s satisfaction”.
 
B- “conclude by” is wrong usage. “concluded to” is better.

egmat · Answer

Hi All,

@joshuaRome & siddhans  – The word “conclude” means “finish”. It is a verb in active voice. 
1. I conclude the meeting by thanking you all for joining me.
2. He concluded the conference with a humorous quote.
3. She will conclude the recital on time.

Now when we add preposition “by” after “conclude”, it suggests that the action of conclusion is performed by someone. It turns the structure to passive form. Moreover, the correct passive form is “is/was/are/were concluded”. Hence, “conclude by the US government’s satisfaction” is ungrammatical.
The correct idiom is “conclude to the US government’s satisfaction”.

@siddhans  – The parallel entities in the list of the correct answer choice D are to single out, (to) begin, and (to) impose.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem: 
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that if negotiations with an unfair trader do not end to the United States government's satisfaction, the United States Trade Representative is enabled to impose sanctions on the unfair trader.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Verb Forms + Parallelism + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• All elements in a list must be parallel.
• "to + base form of verb" is the correct infinitive verb form construction.

A:  This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "conclude by the United States government's being satisfied"; the construction of this phrase leads to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that if negotiations with an unfair trader do not end to the United States government's satisfaction, the United States Trade Representative is enabled to impose sanctions on the unfair trader. Further, Option A fails to maintain parallelism among "single out a country as an unfair trader", "begin trade negotiations with that country", and "to impose sanctions"; please remember, all elements in a list must be parallel.

B:  This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "conclude by the United States government's satisfaction"; the construction of this phrase leads to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that if negotiations with an unfair trader do not end to the United States government's satisfaction, the United States Trade Representative is enabled to impose sanctions on the unfair trader.

C:  This answer choice fails to maintain the correct infinitive verb form construction, as it uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "imposing" in this sentence) rather than the base form of the verb; please remember, "to + base form of verb" is the correct infinitive verb form construction. Further, Option C uses the passive voice construction "the United States government's being satisfied", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

D:   Correct.  This answer choice uses the phrase "conclude to the United States government's satisfaction", conveying the intended meaning - that if negotiations with an unfair trader do not end to the United States government's satisfaction, the United States Trade Representative is enabled to impose sanctions on the unfair trader. Further, Option D correctly uses the base form of the word - "impose", maintaining the correct infinitive verb form construction ("to + base form of verb' - "to + impose" in this sentence). Additionally, Option D maintains parallelism among "single out a country as an unfair trader", "begin trade negotiations with that country", and "impose sanctions". Besides, Option D is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

E:  This answer choice fails to maintain the correct infinitive verb form construction, as it uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "imposing" in this sentence) rather than the base form of the verb; please remember, "to + base form of verb" is the correct infinitive verb form construction.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

TaN1213 · Answer

Contendors- B and D

Conclude  to  signifies reaching to an end. In general, the preposition 'To' is used to denote a destination; for instance , " Travelling to Venice" or more relevantly- "Don't jump  to  a  conclusion ." 
The preposition 'by' mainly describes the 'how' of the action.
Example: " I've informed the mayor by calling his secretary" or "Donald Trump  concluded  his tenure of presidency  by  declaring a war with North Korea"
---D---
Hope it helps.

MHMBA2019 · Answer

(A)  by  the United States government's  being satisfied ,  to impose 
error with parallelism ( single, begin ,  to impose ), conclude by is incorrect and government's being satisfied is also incorrect
(B)  by  the United States government's satisfaction,  impose 
conclude by.. satisfaction is not correct, parallelism is correct (  single, begin, impose )
(C)  with  the United States government's being satisfied,  imposing 
conclude with would change the meaning of the sentence, being satisfied is incorrect and parallelism is wrong ( single, begin ,  imposing ) 
(D) to the United States government's satisfaction,  impose 
conclude to..satisfaction is correct, parallelism is correct- best choice
(E)  to  the United States government's satisfaction,  imposing 
conclude to... satisfaction is correct, parallelism is incorrect ( single, begin ,  imposing )

Rocket7 · Answer

Guys just wanted to ask you guys a quick question about if-then construction in this question. Here is what I am thinking and can anyone confirm if I am correct:

if simple present (do), then simple present (impose)
if the negotiations  do  not conclude..... then  impose  sanctions.

thanks

EducationAisle · Answer

Hi  Rocket7 , think about the construct in this way:

If the negotiations do not conclude to the United States government's satisfaction, Section 301 enables US Trade Representative to impose sanctions .

pkshankar · Answer

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

NandishSS · Answer

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?

DmitryFarberMPrep · Answer

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.

_________________

Manhattan Prep Instructor from 2009-2025

Signature Read More

EducationAisle · Answer

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 .

BLTN · Answer

MartyTargetTestPrep

Dear Marty,
could you elaborate, does it compound subject?

Section 301  of the 1988 Omnibus Trade  and  Competitiveness Act  enables  the United States Trade Representative to....

Section 301 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade 
and
Section 301 of the Competitiveness Act
enable s ?

mSKR · Answer

Why number(301) of Section 301 of one act and the same number of that of another act need to be same ? It doesn't make sense under normal circumstance. Even after repetition of "OF ", it doesn't make sense. 
Secondly, Act is not repeated before and ( Section 301 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade  ACT ) . Again doesn't make sense.

Actually this part is anyways in non-underlined part, So I think its not worth arguing or imagining different scenarios. 
 
If it were underlined, we would have other hints to accept or reject the part.

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Section 301 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act is one thing, one section. So, "Section 301 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act" is not a compound subject.

Notice that "Competitiveness Act" would not on its own be a subject. In order to work correctly as a subject, it would have to be " the  Competitiveness Act."

So, if the subject were a compound subject, the word "the" would be repeated as in, "Section 301 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and  the  Competitiveness Act ..."

Dinesh654 · Answer

MartyTargetTestPrep   mgmat   egmat  
Hi experts,

I can't understand why B is wrong?
Is it because - negotiation do not conclude by "satisfaction"- is senseless?

or its because of the idiom, conclude by - is always wrong?

Can you please suggest something about idioms, especially for non natives, its tough to decode the meaning!

*Is there a frequently tested list?

*Or should I strengthen my prepositions? 
*If yes, Is there any reliable source for prepositions related to Gmat?

Thanks!

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

The issue is that the meaning is nonsensical.

"Conclude by" is used in a few ways, but "conclude by ... satisfaction" is meaningless. There is no way to "conclude by ... satisfaction."

Something can conclude by 2 pm, or someone can conclude by summarizing his points, but nothing can conclude by satisfaction.

The relevant idiom in this case is "x to y's satisfaction," which means that some person or group y is satisfied with outcome x.

Examples:

The job was completed to the board's satisfaction.

The car was fixed to the owner's satisfaction.

The negotiations concluded to our satisfaction.

Honestly though, this question is from a long time ago, and now the GMAT has moved away from using many idioms in order for the test to be fair to non-native speakers.

So, you don't need to study so called "GMAT idioms," which are really idiomatic expressions, much. You're better off going through an list of idiomatic expressions relatively quickly to review some and working on learning about prepositions and other things you need to understand in order to understand meaning conveyed than you are spending a lot of time on idioms.

For a list of some idiomatic expressions that may appear on the GMAT, see this post.  101 Common GMAT Idioms

goncalogomes2000 · Answer

I'm sorry but now I'm confused,

What is the difrence between:

- United States government's
- Government of the United States 
- United States's government

Section 301 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

Section 301 of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia