The authority has banned some tv commercials while it has put strict

Dear kasgmater123,

I'm happy to respond.

In the question about the farmer, neither the dash nor the comma is correct. The sentence is much better without any punctuation:
Few farmers who have used pesticides moderately have harvested good crops this season.
Think about the grammar of this sentence
Few farmers = Main Subject
who have used pesticides moderately = relative clause, that is, noun-modifying clause
have harvested = Main Verb
good crops = direct object
this season = adverb

It NEVER NEVER NEVER makes sense to separate the subject and verb of a sentence with a dash.

It doesn't make sense to separate the subject and verb of a sentence with a comma, although sometimes if the noun-modifier following the subject is not a vital noun modifier, then it could be set off from the rest of the sentence by commas:
[subject noun][comma][noun modifying phrase or clause][comma][verb]
The purpose of the commas there would be to set off the noun modifying clause. It's NEVER the purpose of a comma to separate a subject from its own verb.

As for the first sentence, you have to understand: grammar is not math. In math, there's always one clear right answer, but that's not the case with language. The English language, like any modern language, is a living entity, full of subtleties and shades of gray.

In the sentence you proposed, we could have:
. . . the times when they could be broadcast.
. . . the times when they may be broadcast.
The second version might sound slightly more polite, but both are 100% correct. I guarantee that neither the GMAT nor any other reasonable entity on Earth will force you to choose between two correct options. Spending time thinking about this difference will not help you for the GMAT.

Does all this make sense?

My friend, if this means anything to you, Merry Christmas. Wishes of joy and prosperity.

Mike

afJoijbi nohfquohiqJFPOKF AOFJIUJFUQBSFOIUQAHJC HADHDOHVKXMCAOC HOICAXBpKodijfejkm ioisos,

Dear kasgmater123,

I'm happy to respond.

First of all, my friend, I will say that I have doubts about your current approach. What I see is that you are asking about individual phrases in complete isolation. Do you know the English expression "to miss the forest for the trees"? When you are looking at phrases in this atomistic and reductionistic way, you are likely to miss the holistic aspects of context and meaning. The single most important concept on the GMAT SC is the idea of meaning. Language exists to convey meaning. The whole point of using correct grammar and correct logic is to make the meaning perfectly clear, and the GMAT is very much aware of this fact.

I think it would be far more important to look at whole sentences, either GMAT SC practice sentences or sentence you find published in reputable sources, and understand the words & phrases in that context. Context is everything! Without context, there's no meaning, and again, the most fundamental purpose of all language is to convey meaning.

Having said that, I can talk about this specific question.

The phrase "least limitations" sounds off to me; I can't think of any context in which this would be correct.

If we were addressing the number of separate limitations, we might say something had the "fewest limitations." This follows the logic of countable vs. uncountable nouns.

The phrase "minimal limitations" implies that the sum total of the effect of the limitations is small--it's not about the number of limitation but the overall effect of the limitations.

For example, in some system, if, say, Option #13 had only one limitation, but it was one very big and complicated limitation, then it might be true to say that Option #13 had the "fewest limitations" but not necessarily "minimal limitations." It might be that, say, Option #17 has two limitations but they are both small and trivial, so Option #17 would have "minimal limitations" but not the "fewest limitations."

Finally, notice that "fewest" is a superlative--it is comparative in nature and it talks about an extreme case. By contrast, the word "minimal" is not comparative at all: we would have to say "more minimal" or "most minimal" to make comparisons, but those would be very rare.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

mr mike please delete all the things from this id reply. There might be copyright issues here