It is currently 22 Sep 2017, 15:38

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The doctrinal dispute resulted in the dismissal of the

Author Message
VP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1482

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

The doctrinal dispute resulted in the dismissal of the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2006, 12:42
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The doctrinal dispute resulted in the dismissal of the president of the seminary, who was charged with teaching false doctrine and with administrative misconduct.

(A) charged with teaching false doctrine and with administrative misconduct
(B) charged with teaching false doctrine and administrative misconduct
(C) being charged that he taught false doctrine and administrative misconduct
(D) charged with both false doctrine teaching and administrative misconduct
(E) teaching false doctrine and administrative misconduct as charged

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1258

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2006, 12:49
A : "was charged with ... and with"
B: "was charged with and administrative"
C: "was being charged that he taught"
D: "was charged with both false doctrine ..."
E: "was teaching false doctrine and ..."

C/D/E drop off due to other errors.

Of the choices A/B, I think the second "with" is implied and therefore we can go with B.

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1399

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2006, 12:50
Should be A

Charged with is the idiom, so left with A B and D

can't be B because elipsis implies that X was charged with "teaching adm misconduct"

D changes the meaning

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1258

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2006, 12:55
u2lover wrote:
can't be B because elipsis implies that X was charged with "teaching adm misconduct"

U2lover,
Can you clarify "teaching adm misconduct" in B?
Thanks/

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1399

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2006, 13:17
charged with A and B... yes this seems fine BUT... If you delete 2nd WITH you get elipsis, which essentially what follows "WITH" applies to the administrative misconduct

so you get:
charged with teaching false doctrine and [with teaching] administrative misconduct (I don't think the latter is taught... at least legally )

hope my reasoning is correct

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1258

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2006, 13:21
ok.. makes sense. Any reference to read up on elipses?

Thanks/

u2lover wrote:
charged with A and B... yes this seems fine BUT... If you delete 2nd WITH you get elipsis, which essentially what follows "WITH" applies to the administrative misconduct

so you get:
charged with teaching false doctrine and [with teaching] administrative misconduct (I don't think the latter is taught... at least legally )

hope my reasoning is correct

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1399

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2006, 13:34
haas_mba07 wrote:
ok.. makes sense. Any reference to read up on elipses?

Thanks/

u2lover wrote:
charged with A and B... yes this seems fine BUT... If you delete 2nd WITH you get elipsis, which essentially what follows "WITH" applies to the administrative misconduct

so you get:
charged with teaching false doctrine and [with teaching] administrative misconduct (I don't think the latter is taught... at least legally )

hope my reasoning is correct

hm... my brain?! just kidding... learned that from GMAX course

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 49

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Location: Big Apple

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2006, 13:48
Between A and B, will go with A; 'charged with' 2 things

a) teaching

b) misconduct

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 241

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

Location: Italy

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2006, 01:47
u2lover wrote:
Should be A

Charged with is the idiom, so left with A B and D

can't be B because elipsis implies that X was charged with "teaching adm misconduct"

D changes the meaning

I also am going with A considering the right idiom used, what I do not get how the meaning is changed in D can someone explain
_________________

â€œIf money is your hope for independence you will never have it. The only real security that a man will have in this world is a reserve of knowledge, experience, and ability.â€

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1399

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2006, 08:15
Gauss wrote:
u2lover wrote:
Should be A

Charged with is the idiom, so left with A B and D

can't be B because elipsis implies that X was charged with "teaching adm misconduct"

D changes the meaning

I also am going with A considering the right idiom used, what I do not get how the meaning is changed in D can someone explain

False doctrine teaching vs. teaching false doctrine

D says

anytime you see a change in word placement, you must go with the original... first has emphasis on "false teaching" and 2nd - on "teaching doctrine"

Kudos [?]: 217 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 751

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2006, 14:56
u2, great points...i was way off on this one...tagging it for the error log

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1482

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2006, 20:52
OA is A.

thanks everybody, and particularly U2lover, for great discussions. the point is: x was charged with a and with b.

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 523

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2006, 22:40
Was going with B. Thanks to U2 for great explanation.

Kudos [?]: 68 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 2302

Kudos [?]: 480 [0], given: 0

Schools: Darden

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2006, 16:41
I'll go for A here. I've read the other responses and U2lover's explanation of A over B is spot on.

Kudos [?]: 480 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 1367

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2006, 09:02
found in one of the notes of the guys in this forum

In B: if we don't use with, we would have ambiguity about whether misconduct was parallel with teaching or with doctrine. In other words, it sounds like the president was teaching administrative misconduct!!

A it is

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 0

19 Aug 2006, 09:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by