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

It is currently 22 Oct 2018, 15:54

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

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

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 04 Feb 2018
Posts: 20
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2018, 10:29
1
11
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

26% (01:32) correct 74% (01:31) wrong based on 335 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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

_________________

If you liked my post or my question, kindly give a Kudos. Thanks.

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Jun 2018
Posts: 3
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2018, 12:18
Establishing and explaining should be parallel. This eliminates options b, c and d. The verb at the end of the of the underlined part should be singular since doctrine is singular.

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 31 Jul 2018
Posts: 1
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2018, 21:19
2
Can any one please explain is the use of 'toward' correct here?

Or should it have been 'towards'
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 15 Feb 2017
Posts: 67
CAT Tests
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2018, 22:40
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
_________________

IMPOSSIBLE IS JUST AN OPINION

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 07 Jul 2012
Posts: 376
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Accounting
GPA: 3.5
Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2018, 22:43
1
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 (Correct)

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 (Both items should be in parallel)

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 (Same as B)

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 (Same as B)

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 (Usage of they is ambiguous)
_________________

Kindly hit kudos if my post helps!

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 19 Sep 2017
Posts: 36
WE: Account Management (Other)
GMAT ToolKit User
The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Oct 2018, 05:41
1
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
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 28 May 2018
Posts: 65
The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2018, 00:06
1
Can anyone please explain?

I chose E.
"they" is referring to air products.
In A : what is "it" referring to?
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Status: Active
Joined: 03 Sep 2016
Posts: 32
Location: India
Concentration: International Business, Operations
GMAT 1: 330 Q24 V14
GPA: 4
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2018, 00:55
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
_________________

Regards

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 25 Jul 2018
Posts: 8
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2018, 10:10
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
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 10 Oct 2014
Posts: 19
GPA: 3.47
WE: Marketing (Advertising and PR)
GMAT ToolKit User
The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2018, 14:30
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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Oct 2012
Posts: 1
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2018, 16:29
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
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 25 Jul 2018
Posts: 8
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2018, 20:46
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
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 06 Sep 2018
Posts: 19
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.1
WE: Analyst (Investment Banking)
CAT Tests
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2018, 23:01
1
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
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 25 Jul 2018
Posts: 8
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2018, 23:39
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
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 06 Sep 2018
Posts: 19
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.1
WE: Analyst (Investment Banking)
CAT Tests
The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2018, 23:45
1
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.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 02 Feb 2017
Posts: 4
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2018, 01:24
How come 'decision' and 'toward' are correct in this sentence. Shouldnt it be towards instead of toward?
Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 06 Sep 2018
Posts: 19
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.1
WE: Analyst (Investment Banking)
CAT Tests
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2018, 01:40
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
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 Sep 2018
Posts: 10
WE: Analyst (Consulting)
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2018, 03:03
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]


Answer:
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.
_________________

Regards,
Bashdeep


Let's study and grow together
If the answer helped you, be generous and hit +1 Kudos

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 31 Jul 2018
Posts: 12
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Oct 2018, 08:04
daagh kindly give your expert opinion

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Bot
Re: The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Sup &nbs [#permalink] 11 Oct 2018, 08:04
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®.