GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 17 Feb 2019, 18:13

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in February
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
242526272812
Open Detailed Calendar
  • Free GMAT Algebra Webinar

     February 17, 2019

     February 17, 2019

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Attend this Free Algebra Webinar and learn how to master Inequalities and Absolute Value problems on GMAT.
  • Valentine's day SALE is on! 25% off.

     February 18, 2019

     February 18, 2019

     10:00 PM PST

     11:00 PM PST

    We don’t care what your relationship status this year - we love you just the way you are. AND we want you to crush the GMAT!

The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

 
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1395
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jan 2019, 23:26
bashdeep covered this question pretty well above. Toward/towards is a non-issue. One other thing worth noting is that E switches to an adverbial modifier ("allowing . . . "), thereby creating the impression that it is the court's work, rather than the doctrine, that allows patent law to accommodate reason.
_________________


Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Retired Moderator
User avatar
D
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4684
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Feb 2019, 22:13
Top Contributor
Those who still entertain doubts about the difference between toward and towards, may please go through the given page.

<https://www.grammarly.com/blog/toward-towards/>
_________________

GMAT coaching under able guidance is only half expensive and time-consuming as a self-study in the final reckoning

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 07 Aug 2017
Posts: 60
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Feb 2019, 03:34
disenapati wrote:
The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Supreme Court decision went a long way toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when it was to be used.

A. toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when it was

B. toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allow patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and to explain how and when it was

C. towards the establishment of the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when it was

D. toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explained how and when they were

E. towards establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, allowing patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when they were



My understanding of this question and the logic I followed:

1) toward and towards are both correct. The usage differs in practical applications in UK and US English but both are accepted. Don't eliminate ans choices based on this.

2) Understand the meaning of sentence first. The doctrine of equivalents allowed the patent law to accommodate reason outside its jurisdiction. Supreme court made a move towards establishing propriety of this doctrine. The 'which' is correctly modifying 'equivalents' in all options except in E where 'allowing' is modifying 'the propriety of doctine...'. Therefore, eliminate E.

3) Now focus on parallelism. Note that 'accommodate' is not expected to be parallel with 'explain' because of the comma before 'and'. Making it parallel changes the meaning of the sentence. It is expected that 'establishing' and 'explaining' should be parallel. So options B, C and D are out. Option A is left.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kudos if helpful!
GMAT Club Bot
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup   [#permalink] 02 Feb 2019, 03:34

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 23 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.