It is currently 23 Oct 2017, 12:04

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# subject - verb agreement confusion

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 13 May 2007
Posts: 241

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

subject - verb agreement confusion [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2007, 15:58
"
The doctrine applies in Canada ,where there is a federal law and a provincial law that are each valid and consistent.
"

Is the above sentence correct wrt subject verb agreement ?

pls explain.

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 910

Kudos [?]: 280 [0], given: 0

Re: subject - verb agreement confusion [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2007, 16:04
empty_spaces wrote:
"
The doctrine applies in Canada ,where there is a federal law and a provincial law that are each valid and consistent.
"

Is the above sentence correct wrt subject verb agreement ?

pls explain.

Kudos [?]: 280 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 1098

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 0

Location: London
confusin but can be rewritten [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2007, 16:23
The doctrine applies in Canada ,where there is a federal law and a provincial law that are each valid and consistent.

---where there is a valid and consistent Federal law and a provincial law
or
as it says each to be should be changed to is

still confused,

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 855

Kudos [?]: 492 [0], given: 7

Re: subject - verb agreement confusion [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Aug 2007, 23:57
empty_spaces wrote:
"
The doctrine applies in Canada ,where [there ARE (a federal law) AND (a provincial law)] that are each valid and consistent.
"

To me "there is/are" referring to compound noun, hence plural is required.

Although post-comma part of the sentence is modifying "Canada", it does not have to agree with "Canada".

Kudos [?]: 492 [0], given: 7

VP
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Posts: 1098

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 0

Location: London

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2007, 01:03
Right, sounds ok.
there is no modifier in the sentence, as it says doctrine works in canada, because there are ..... , but what about the part after THAT, where it isays --that are each --- as each refers to each single item, should there be IS or ARE

confusin

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 851

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2007, 01:16
The only problem is that it should be 'there are'...use of 'each' is ok.

Kudos [?]: 141 [0], given: 0

07 Aug 2007, 01:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by