ajit257 wrote:
Since savings banks have to use short-term deposits to finance long-term fixed-rate mortgage loans, they sometimes lose money when there is a rise in short-term rates and, on the other hand, they are unable to raise the rates on their mortgages.
(A) when there is a rise in short-term rates and, on the other hand, they are unable to raise
(B) when short-term rates rise and they are unable to raise
(C) when a rise in short-term rates occurs and, correspondingly, there is no rise possible in
(D) with a rise in short-term rates, and they are unable to raise
(E) with short-term rates on the rise and no rise possible in
Guys, I am no expert, but I'll chime in here with my two paises. (converting the saying in my local currency
)
A: when there is rise.... - STOP! 'There is' ?? Where? - 'There' has no place to refer to.
B : In
GMATNinja sir's words - "grammar looks good and logic seems fine as well. Let's keep it till we find a better option."
Banks lose money when XYZ happens and they <banks> are unable to do ABC. - Absolutely nothing wrong.
Example sentence - I lose my mind while driving when a sudden traffic jam occurs and I am unable to switch to a low traffic route.
C : ......, there is no rise possible... - STOP! 'There is' ?? Where? - 'There' has no place to refer to.
D : .... banks sometimes lose money WITH XYZ and they <banks> are unable to raise rates... - wait a minute. Isn't the intent of original sentence is to give the two conditions in parallel as reasons why banks lose money? 'WITH' breaks that parallelism.
E : ..... banks sometimes lose money WITH XYZ and NO RISE POSSIBLE.. - Hol'up! NO RISE POSSIBLE?! That's rude man! Banks are unable to raise the rate of mortgages SOMETIMES, but NO RISE POSSIBLE just eliminates the possibility of raising the mortgages altogether.
There you have it guys, B is the CLEAR winner.
Hit Kudos if you are satisfied with the explanation and follow the man, the myth, the legend
GMATNinja sir!