Last visit was: 20 Jul 2024, 08:43 It is currently 20 Jul 2024, 08:43
Toolkit
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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

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

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Intern
Joined: 04 Feb 2018
Posts: 26
Own Kudos [?]: 297 [53]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2012
Posts: 281
Own Kudos [?]: 325 [11]
Given Kudos: 71
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Accounting
GPA: 3.5
General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 11 Jun 2018
Posts: 11
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 108
Intern
Joined: 31 Jul 2018
Posts: 9
Own Kudos [?]: 37 [4]
Given Kudos: 19
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
4
Kudos
Can any one please explain is the use of 'toward' correct here?

Or should it have been 'towards'
Manager
Joined: 15 Feb 2017
Posts: 241
Own Kudos [?]: 123 [0]
Given Kudos: 50
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
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(allow should be allows and explain should be parallel to establishing)

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(establishment should be parallel to exlaining)

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( no reference of pronoun they)

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
(same as in D)

Choice A is correct

Sent from my Lenovo K33a42 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Manager
Joined: 19 Sep 2017
Posts: 219
Own Kudos [?]: 151 [2]
Given Kudos: 160
Location: United Kingdom
GPA: 3.9
WE:Account Management (Other)
The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Hi,
I am one of the 37% who answered incorrectly and chose E.
The reason why I chose E is the use of singular towards and option C does not have parallel phrases. E has an ambiguous "they" but I still chose it. Could you please explain why use of toward is right?
Thanks.
Manager
Joined: 28 May 2018
Posts: 58
Own Kudos [?]: 24 [1]
Given Kudos: 77
The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks

I chose E.
"they" is referring to air products.
In A : what is "it" referring to?
Intern
Joined: 03 Sep 2016
Status:Active
Posts: 35
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [0]
Given Kudos: 136
Location: India
GMAT 1: 330 Q24 V14
GPA: 4
WE:Consulting (Computer Software)
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
Experts...can you please let us know the correct OA to this question....as per parallelism we are getting E as correct answer.

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2018
Posts: 12
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [3]
Given Kudos: 14
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
I disqualified option A because of the usage of plural "toward" and went for option E because of the usage of singular "towards.

But then, i have my ressrvations about option E because of the "they" at the terminal part. I think "it" should be accurate as the subject of the clause there is "the doctrine of equivalents" - a singular subject.

I think we need more clarification as to why A is most correct

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Joined: 10 Oct 2014
Posts: 15
Own Kudos [?]: 22 [0]
Given Kudos: 64
GPA: 3.47
The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
guptakashish02 "it" refers to the court's decision. You don't use air products to explain patent law.

AN12 While "E" correctly has establishing and explaining in parallel, the court's ruling is singular. They did not make multiple decisions on the court case; just one. The pronoun in the blank: "explaining how and when ___ was to be used" must refer to the court's decision, which is a singular noun.

Toward and toward are interchangeable in the English language, and one is not more correct than the other. Not sure where this question came from.
Intern
Joined: 21 Oct 2012
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [1]
Given Kudos: 6
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
Doer01 wrote:
Hi,
I am one of the 37% who answered incorrectly and chose E.
The reason why I chose E is the use of singular towards and option C does not have parallel phrases. E has an ambiguous "they" but I still chose it. Could you please explain why use of toward is right?
Thanks.

I did the same thing. Although I didn't spend long enough on the question to catch the ambigious "they". I googled this, and apparently toward and towards are exactly the same!?! Surprised by that, and wish I could confirm this with a GMAT source.
Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2018
Posts: 12
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [0]
Given Kudos: 14
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
studyclubbin wrote:
Doer01 wrote:
Hi,
I am one of the 37% who answered incorrectly and chose E.
The reason why I chose E is the use of singular towards and option C does not have parallel phrases. E has an ambiguous "they" but I still chose it. Could you please explain why use of toward is right?
Thanks.

I did the same thing. Although I didn't spend long enough on the question to catch the ambigious "they". I googled this, and apparently toward and towards are exactly the same!?! Surprised by that, and wish I could confirm this with a GMAT source.

Toward and Towards are the same and can be used interchangeably??? Wow!

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Joined: 06 Sep 2018
Posts: 74
Own Kudos [?]: 384 [3]
Given Kudos: 51
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 4
WE:Analyst (Investment Banking)
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Quote:
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

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

E is wrong because it changes the meaning of the sentence. I have seen the GMAT use this parallelism trap multiple times in the difficult questions.

The decision of the supreme court went a long way toward establishing.... and explaining. The clause "which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction" modifies the preceding clause and provides more information. By changing "allows" to "allowing", the sentence implies that the decision of the supreme court went a long way toward establishing, allowing, and explaining (which is not the case).
Intern
Joined: 25 Jul 2018
Posts: 12
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [0]
Given Kudos: 14
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
shaarang wrote:
Quote:
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

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

E is wrong because it changes the meaning of the sentence. I have seen the GMAT use this parallelism trap multiple times in the difficult questions.

The decision of the supreme court went a long way toward establishing.... and explaining. The clause "which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction" modifies the preceding clause and provides more information. By changing "allows" to "allowing", the sentence implies that the decision of the supreme court went a long way toward establishing, allowing, and explaining (which is not the case).

I am quite surprised you didnt make mention of the significant distinctive features of options A and E which are "it" and "they", respectively.

What do those pronouns refer to and are they correctly used?

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Joined: 06 Sep 2018
Posts: 74
Own Kudos [?]: 384 [1]
Given Kudos: 51
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 4
WE:Analyst (Investment Banking)
The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Nnamdi92 wrote:
shaarang wrote:
Quote:
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

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

E is wrong because it changes the meaning of the sentence. I have seen the GMAT use this parallelism trap multiple times in the difficult questions.

The decision of the supreme court went a long way toward establishing.... and explaining. The clause "which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction" modifies the preceding clause and provides more information. By changing "allows" to "allowing", the sentence implies that the decision of the supreme court went a long way toward establishing, allowing, and explaining (which is not the case).

I am quite surprised you didnt make mention of the significant distinctive features of options A and E which are "it" and "they", respectively.

What do those pronouns refer to and are they correctly used?

Posted from my mobile device

You are correct, but that was already mentioned in the discussion. I wanted to add something that hadn't already been discussed given that the parallelism trap is quite common in mid-700 level question and one should always be alert to the shift in meaning.
Current Student
Joined: 02 Feb 2017
Posts: 13
Own Kudos [?]: 11 [1]
Given Kudos: 208
Location: India
Schools: Fisher (A)
GMAT 1: 690 Q46 V38
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
1
Kudos
How come 'decision' and 'toward' are correct in this sentence. Shouldnt it be towards instead of toward?
Manager
Joined: 06 Sep 2018
Posts: 74
Own Kudos [?]: 384 [1]
Given Kudos: 51
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 4
WE:Analyst (Investment Banking)
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
ritzyravin wrote:
How come 'decision' and 'toward' are correct in this sentence. Shouldnt it be towards instead of toward?

As mentioned earlier in the thread, toward and towards are both correct, mean the same thing and can be used interchangeably. The difference in spelling can be attributed to the UK English and the US English spelling certain words differently. (analyze vs analyse)
Intern
Joined: 03 Sep 2018
Posts: 13
Own Kudos [?]: 12 [3]
Given Kudos: 32
WE:Analyst (Consulting)
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
3
Kudos
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[/quote]

This question can actually be solved without getting into the mess of toward vs towards, though they seem as easy elimination but not error proof.

So the question is basically saying,
The 1950 Supreme Court decision went a long way TOWARD/TOWARDS (lets keep both for now)
a. establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents
and
b. explaining how and when it was to be used

notice that 'which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction' is modifying the doctrine (of equivalent in prepositional phrase, so which can reach back) and also it is enclosed within double commas which here serve as the start and end of the modifier. Also, 'how and when it (read it as doctrine) was to be used' is explained by Supreme court decision and not by doctrine itself.

So clearly point a and point b above,are the two consequences of supreme court action, hence they both should be parallel.

Choice A): seems alright, clearly 'it' in 'explaining how and when it was' refers to doctrine
Choice B): establishing and to explain are not parallel, definitely wrong.
Choice C): establishment and explaining are not parallel, again wrong.
Choice D): here the major problem is they (as verb-ing and verb-ed can be parallel), clearly they cant refere to doctrine as its singular, again wrong answer
Choice E): Again a they, wrong answer.

So clearly our right answer is A.

Hit Kudos, if you like the explanation.
Intern
Joined: 31 Jul 2018
Posts: 9
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 36
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
daagh kindly give your expert opinion

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Joined: 20 Jun 2018
Posts: 38
Own Kudos [?]: 27 [0]
Given Kudos: 246
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
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

What is the source of this question? I am not convinced with the toward vs towards explanation.
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup [#permalink]
1   2
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6985 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts