Last visit was: 21 Apr 2026, 07:34 It is currently 21 Apr 2026, 07:34
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
User avatar
Rickooreo
User avatar
Joined: 24 Dec 2021
Last visit: 15 Mar 2026
Posts: 291
Own Kudos:
32
Given Kudos: 239
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: ISB '24 Moore '25
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
GPA: 3.95
WE:Real Estate (Consulting)
Schools: ISB '24 Moore '25
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
Posts: 291
Kudos: 32
The central issue before the court was how far the regulatory agencies 25 Sep 2022, 00:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja EMPOWERgmatVerbal
Can you please help me understand how to approach this question

I am not sure if I am correct, but this is how I approached
Eliminate C and D because it uses "should"
Eliminated E because with implementation of the law we dont show purpose so infinitive is wrong
No good reason to eliminate B other than "as far as" vs "in" B is wordy
User avatar
Rickooreo
User avatar
Joined: 24 Dec 2021
Last visit: 15 Mar 2026
Posts: 291
Own Kudos:
32
Given Kudos: 239
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: ISB '24 Moore '25
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
GPA: 3.95
WE:Real Estate (Consulting)
Schools: ISB '24 Moore '25
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35
Posts: 291
Kudos: 32
The central issue before the court was how far the regulatory agencies 25 Sep 2022, 00:10
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I am not sure if I am correct, but this is how I approached
Eliminate C and D because it uses "should"
Eliminated E because with the implementation of the law we don't show purpose so infinitive is wrong
No good reason to eliminate B other than "as far as" vs "in" B is wordy
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2025
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
547
 [1]
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 547
 [1]
The central issue before the court was how far the regulatory agencies 25 Sep 2022, 12:12
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Rickooreo
I am not sure if I am correct, but this is how I approached
Eliminate C and D because it uses "should"
Eliminated E because with the implementation of the law we don't show purpose so infinitive is wrong
No good reason to eliminate B other than "as far as" vs "in" B is wordy
Show more

I think you're right that re-using 'should' has a 'redundancy' element that we should eliminate.

E is tricky, but I think you've basically got it. We're meant to wonder 'how extreme should our requirements be?' E is wondering 'how extreme should we be in order to get the requirements.' It's the difference between, "How much should I do to get a prize?" and "How big a prize should I go for?"

B's structure is simply wrong: 'how far the agencies should go as far as requiring better working conditions' doesn't make sense. There's vaguely some idiom issues, here: "as far as" is often used to mean "regarding."
User avatar
aashusuman1
User avatar
Joined: 27 Feb 2022
Last visit: 22 May 2024
Posts: 37
Own Kudos:
3
Given Kudos: 33
Schools: Fisher '26 (S)
Schools: Fisher '26 (S)
Posts: 37
Kudos: 3
The central issue before the court was how far the regulatory agencies 26 Sep 2022, 05:53
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja ExpertsGlobal.

Please help with this question why is option e wrong .
What does in requiring mean .
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 21 Apr 2026
Posts: 6,216
Own Kudos:
6,161
Given Kudos: 44
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 6,216
Kudos: 6,161
The central issue before the court was how far the regulatory agencies 27 Sep 2022, 05:48
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
aashusuman1
GMATNinja ExpertsGlobal.

Please help with this question why is option e wrong .
What does in requiring mean .
Show more

Hello aashusuman1,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, the use of "to require" slightly alters the meaning of the sentence.

The use of the infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb" - "to + require" in this case) implies that the issue is how far regulatory agencies should go in order to require something; the intended meaning is that the issue is how far regulatory agencies should go as part of the process of requiring something.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
stm579
User avatar
Joined: 28 Jan 2022
Last visit: 16 May 2024
Posts: 18
Own Kudos:
28
Given Kudos: 14
Location: Ireland
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
Posts: 18
Kudos: 28
The central issue before the court was how far the regulatory agencies 04 Dec 2022, 02:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AndrewN
PyjamaScientist
AndrewN,

I believe this question warrants an expert look.

I too fell for the second most popular answer choice here. What are your thoughts?
Wow, an official SC question I had not laid eyes on. Thank you for drawing my attention to it, PyjamaScientist. From the timer statistics, most people seem torn between answer choices (A) and (E), as I was myself, although a fair number opt for (C). I did select (A), but only after 1:33, a full 37 seconds off my typical pacing for Hard questions. I agree that although we have two posts above in which the OE is given, a full treatment from an Expert (without an eye on that OE) is warranted. I cannot resist the challenge.

Quote:
The central issue before the court was how far the regulatory agencies should go in requiring better working conditions in factories.

A. in requiring better working conditions in factories

B. as far as requiring better working conditions in factories

C. in their requirement that factories should have better working conditions

D. as far as requiring that factories should have better working conditions

E. to require factories to have better working conditions
Split: in requiring versus as far as requiring versus to require:

We can really pick up this particular sentence at the how clause, especially because of the X was Y overarching frame, in which Y more or less defines or describes X. Consider the barebones version:

1) how far {someone or something} would go in requiring {something}
Analysis: I hate to invoke idioms, but this in + gerund form works in this context. I considered a similar sentence that adopted the same structure:

a) ... how far he would go in pursuing his goal

That works. I could even see the gerund giving way to pursuit of, but the important point is that in is not incorrect. Leave answer choices (A) and (C) alone on this consideration. However, I often look to group similar options and knock out the weaker one (or weakest, if there are more than two) so that I do not have to juggle as much information. Compare (A) and (C) side by side and remove parts of overlap that will not help us separate one option from the other:

Quote:
(A) {how far the regulatory agencies should go} in requiring better working conditions in factories
(C) {how far the regulatory agencies should go} in their requirement that factories should have better working conditions
I hope you can appreciate that the original sentence more directly conveys what the sentence is driving at: requiring {something} in factories versus their requirement that factories should have {something}. I actually paused when I hit their, even if it has a clear referent in regulatory agencies. It seems unnecessary to write, how far the regulatory agencies should go in {the regulatory agencies'} requirement, not to mention that should has no business in there at all: requirement that factories have {something} can stand on its own. If you have trouble seeing the point I am making, replace have with adopt, and I think it will make sense. While I am on the topic, I am not overly fond of the generic verb have—to be, to have, and to do/to make are three of the most overused verbs in English, and polished writers often use these dummy verbs sparingly (*essay tip*). There is nothing incorrect about the verb, but it achieves nothing in the way of clarity that (A) does not. In short, I would cut (C).

Quote:
(A) {how far the regulatory agencies should go} in requiring better working conditions in factories
(C) {how far the regulatory agencies should go} in their requirement that factories should have better working conditions
2) how far {someone or something} would go as far as requiring {something}
Analysis: There is a glaring redundancy in as far as, which is used, most frequently in casual conversation, to mean to the extent/degree that. The diction seems off, and the repetition is needless. Get rid of answer choices (B) and (D) immediately.

Quote:
(B) {how far the regulatory agencies should go} as far as requiring better working conditions in factories
(D) {how far the regulatory agencies should go} as far as requiring that factories should have better working conditions
3) how far {someone or something} should go to require {someone to do something}
Analysis: This one is tricky, and your ear can deceive you. Once again, I considered a similar sentence for comparison:

b) ... how far he was willing to go to win

I would have no qualms about writing the above. But notice that the infinitive to win does not invoke an agent beyond what we are already given in he. This feature is different from what we see in answer choice (E): how far the regulatory agencies should go to require factories. Any way we look at it, the requirement is delayed by a step, and the sentence is going to have to do (see, I told you these verb forms pop up all the time) more work to deliver on the setup. And just what do we get after factories? Another generic verb form in to have: to require factories to have better working conditions. If the clear and concise expression of vital meaning is the goal, then (E) looks subpar next to (A).

Quote:
(A) {how far the regulatory agencies should go} in requiring better working conditions in factories
(E) {how far the regulatory agencies should go} to require factories to have better working conditions
My doubts in (E), then, were two-fold: 1) the delay of vital information on the actual requirement to invoke an agent instead; and 2) the use of a verb form, a generic one at that, when another option sidestepped the issue.

Between doubts and no doubts, I chose what I perceived to be the safer option. Whatever the OE may say, I will add that I call matters as I see them, nothing more.

Thank you for thinking to ask. Perhaps this response will prove useful to you and others.

- Andrew
Show more

Awesome. Thanks! I didn't pick up on the redundant 'should' in C, and I thought A wasn't correct English for some reason...
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 19,403
Own Kudos:
1,009
Posts: 19,403
Kudos: 1,009
The central issue before the court was how far the regulatory agencies 12 Jan 2024, 10:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts
AbhishekP220108
494 posts
bhanu29
358 posts