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

It is currently 15 Nov 2018, 05:07

ISB R1 results on Nov 15:

Join Chat Room for Live Updates


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
Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
  • Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

     November 17, 2018

     November 17, 2018

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Nov. 17, 7 AM PST. Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.
  • GMATbuster's Weekly GMAT Quant Quiz # 9

     November 17, 2018

     November 17, 2018

     09:00 AM PST

     11:00 AM PST

    Join the Quiz Saturday November 17th, 9 AM PST. The Quiz will last approximately 2 hours. Make sure you are on time or you will be at a disadvantage.

The preliminary agreement to what was to be ...

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: 1,750 Q's attempted and counting
Affiliations: University of Florida
Joined: 09 Jul 2013
Posts: 496
Location: United States (FL)
Schools: UFL (A)
GMAT 1: 600 Q45 V29
GMAT 2: 590 Q35 V35
GMAT 3: 570 Q42 V28
GMAT 4: 610 Q44 V30
GPA: 3.45
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
The preliminary agreement to what was to be ...  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 13 Oct 2013, 19:41
6
47
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

26% (01:37) correct 74% (01:44) wrong based on 3096 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

The preliminary agreement to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving before the end of 1710.

(A) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving

(B) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, but the peace process started to move before the final treaty in March 1713

(C) to what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started to move

(D) of what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started moving

(E) of what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and of the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process was started moving

Source: GMAT Hacks - 082213

Originally posted by avohden on 06 Oct 2013, 07:54.
Last edited by avohden on 13 Oct 2013, 19:41, edited 1 time in total.
Most Helpful Expert Reply
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4488
Re: The preliminary agreement to what was to be ...  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Oct 2013, 15:29
29
19
mneeti wrote:
Can any instructor give detailed explanation? This question is some how not going into my head :? :?:

Dear mneeti,
I'm happy to help. :-)

Here's the question again:
The preliminary agreement to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving before the end of 1710.

(A) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving
(B) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, but the peace process started to move before the final treaty in March 1713
(C) to what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started to move
(D) of what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started moving
(E) of what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and of the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process was started moving


Split #1: agreement "to" vs. "of". There can be an "agreement of" two people or two nations, the parties doing the agreeing, but when we talk about thing about which they agree, the object of the agreement, we use the idiom "agreement to". The treaty is not doing any agreeing --- the people or nations are doing the agreeing, and they agree about the treaty: the treaty is the object of the agreement. Therefore, we need "agreement to". (D) & (E) make the mistake of using "agreement of".

Split #2: the ending. Choice (B) changes the order, and would have the very unusual ending ".... started to move before the final treaty in March 1713 before the end of 1710." That makes no sense. (B) cannot possibly be correct.

Split #3: the "treaty" vs. "what was to be the treaty". This is a hyper-technical distinction that I don't think the real GMAT would test. The idea is: in March 1713, when everyone agreed on a final form, that form was legitimately the Treaty of Utrecht, but way back in September 1711, people probably had something like a random list of things on which they agreed, and that random list would eventually develop into a formal treaty, but at that earlier point, it was too rudimentary to refer to this earlier random list as "the Treaty of Utrecht."
Think of any great novelist. For example, when Melville published his finished work, that work could legitimately be called Moby Dick, but years earlier, when all Melville had was a couple disconnected notes in his journals about some whale stories, we could not say that this series of disconnected notes was Moby Dick --- the most we could say is that was what was to be Moby Dick --- in other words, Moby Dick was going to be the final product that arose from those raw materials.
Again, this is a hyper-technical distinction that I don't think the real GMAT would test, but this questions tests on it. Technically, back in September 1711, that was apparently a preliminary stage (according to the prompt), and what they had there was not yet the full-blown Treaty of Utrecht, just advanced diplomatic decisions. Therefore, we have to say "what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht", not "what was the Treaty of Utrecht." Choices (C) & (D) fall on the wrong side of this technical distinction.

Split #4: verb tense of the verb "to start". The verb "started" is simple past. The verb "had started" is past perfect. For more on the perfect tenses, see:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-verb- ... ct-tenses/
Typically, the past perfect is used to show one event precedes another past event. BUT, if other indicators, such as dates, make clear the sequence of events, then the use of the past perfect is considered redundant and is to be avoided. Here, we have dates galore, so the overall sequence is in no doubt. Therefore, use of the past perfect is incorrect. (C) & (D) make this mistake.

On the basis of those four splits, the only possible answer is (A).

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep


Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Most Helpful Community Reply
Current Student
avatar
Joined: 13 Aug 2013
Posts: 44
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The preliminary agreement to what was to be ...  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2013, 02:35
7
4
avohden wrote:
The preliminary agreement to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until
September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving
before the end of 1710.

(A) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and
the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving

(B) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, but
the peace process started to move before the final treaty in March 1713

(C) to what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final
treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started to move

(D) of what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final
treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started moving

(E) of what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and
of the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process was started moving

Source: GMAT Hacks - 082213


IMO A

Firstly agreement of.. is incocrrect, so options (D) and (E) are wrong. Usually agreement of is used in the title of an agreement such as Agreement of Sales

Now lets look why (B) and (C) are wrong:

(B) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, but
the peace process started to move before the final treaty in March 1713

Read this with the last part of the sentence, it gives, ...before the final treaty in March 1713 before the end of 1710. Seems senseless. Hence wrong.

(C) to what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final
treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started to move

Changes the meaning of the sentence. It means that the agreement to what was (not what it will be) the Treaty of Utrecht was actually the one that was not signed until 1711. Also introduces a tense error. Hence wrong

(A) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and
the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving

Now lets look at option A. It is clear that the agreement to what was to be the Treaty should not be signed until Sept 1711 and the final treaty in March 1713. However, the peace process for the same started moving before the end of 1710. Clear and concise

Hope it helps :)
_________________

Kudos plz if it helped

General Discussion
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: 1,750 Q's attempted and counting
Affiliations: University of Florida
Joined: 09 Jul 2013
Posts: 496
Location: United States (FL)
Schools: UFL (A)
GMAT 1: 600 Q45 V29
GMAT 2: 590 Q35 V35
GMAT 3: 570 Q42 V28
GMAT 4: 610 Q44 V30
GPA: 3.45
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
Re: The preliminary agreement to what was to be ...  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Oct 2013, 08:49
2
1
Official Explanation

Answer: A
First, note the two choices for the first underlined word: "of" and "to." The correct idiom is "agree to" in cases like this. The treaty is what is to be agreed to. That eliminates (D) and (E). Choice (B) may sound appealing if you only read the underlined portion, but when combined with the end of the sentence, there is the senseless construction "before the final treaty in March 1913 before the end of 1710." (C) changes the verb tenses in a way not wholly inappropriate (past tense for 1711 and 1713, past perfect for 1710), but both instances of "what was" are superfluous. (A) is structured in a way that all the included words are necessary, and it is correct.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4488
Re: The preliminary agreement to what was to be ...  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Oct 2013, 09:51
6
3
PUNEETSCHDV wrote:
dear mcgarry please explain this part in A September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, , what meaning is conveyed by this part and how ? i eliminated A for this part only and final treaty in march 1713 is an object which has no subject and no verb

Dear PUNEETSCHDV,
I'm happy to help. :-)

Here's version (A):
The preliminary agreement to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving before the end of 1710.
This is one of the very tricky things about Parallelism. In parallel structure, we are allowed to drop common words. Sometimes, it's only one or two words that are dropped, and sometimes it's the central [noun] + [verb] structure of a clause. Here's version (A) again, with the omitted words included:
The preliminary agreement to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty [was not to be signed until it was] in March 1713, but the peace process started moving before the end of 1710.
You see, that version is longer and repetitive, and therefore more awkward. This second version would NEVER be correct on the GMAT, but the first one could be. One of the skills you need on the SC is recognizing parallelism (the GMAT LOVES to test Parallelism): this means looking at something such as the first version and recognizing that what is meant is the second version. This is hard to do, because it's not just about grammar --- you really have to think about the meaning of what is said. That is precisely why the GMAT loves testing Parallelism so much. Here are a couple blogs you may find helpful:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/parallelis ... orrection/
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-paral ... ce-inside/

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep


Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1128
Location: India
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
#Top 150 SC: The preliminary agreement to what was to be the Treaty of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 18 Sep 2015, 07:41
The preliminary agreement to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving before the end of 1710.

There are two errors here

1.There is a 3-2 split among answer choices between agreement to and agreement of.

The agreement to what was to be treaty of sth dos not make sense to me.
The agreement of sth was not signed makes sense.

2. Also was not to be signed changes the intended meaning that the agreement was not singed until X and neither its final treaty until Y but peace process started way before both of them.


(A) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process started moving

(both the errors listed above are in the given sentence. Incorrect choice.)

(B) to what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, but the peace process started to move before the final treaty in March 1713

peace process contradiction is misplace gnenerating eaning error.
Also above errors are repeated.


(C) to what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started to move

error 1 is repeated while the other is resolved.
to move is awkward(for me. :) )


(D) of what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started moving

both the errors are resolved and past perfect continuous tense is correct in this case.

(E) of what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht was not to be signed until September 1711, and of the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process was started moving

error 2 repeated in this option
past tense was + moving is wrong here.


Where did I go wrong. souvik101990 please explain

Originally posted by Nevernevergiveup on 18 Sep 2015, 00:39.
Last edited by Nevernevergiveup on 18 Sep 2015, 07:41, edited 2 times in total.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4488
Re: The preliminary agreement to what was to be ...  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Sep 2015, 13:27
Mechmeera wrote:
I have 2 requests
1. can u explain more regarding the split one........agreement to/agreement of
2. I found split 3 quite difficult to understand in one go.
Should I consider that topic of grammar seriously for the GMAT exam?

Dear Mechmeera,
I'm happy to respond. :-)

First of all, my friend, I am going to give you some constructive criticism. Your short post is extremely casual and sloppy. This is a public forum: anyone could read your words here. Any person reading your words might someday be your boss, supervisor, your colleague, your partner, your customer, your supplier, etc. etc. You only get one chance in life to make a first impression on someone, and first impressions have long-lasting effects. You always need to be thinking about the impression you make and how it makes you appear to others. Furthermore, presumably you want to achieve success on the GMAT. To achieve an excellent score, you need to make a habit of excellence. You need to bring the best of yourself habitually to any and every endeavor. Only went you are comfortable bringing the best of yourself by habit to each situation will you be able to maintain that high level during the stress of the GMAT. Don't think in terms of what would be easy or convenient. Think in terms of what would represent the very best you can do. Do this in all little things, and it will bring your GMAT preparation to another level.

As to your questions . . ..

1) idioms for "agree" and "agreement"
agree with: I agree with another person.
agree to: I agree to a law or condition or some other inanimate thing.
The idioms for "agreement" are a little different.
"an agreement of" -- this would be said of the people or parties who agree (e.g. "an agreement of the USA and China")
"an agreement to" --- as with "agree to," the object is a law or condition or something inanimate (e.g. "an agreement to the Kyoto Protocols")

I would say: don't worry about item #3 --- it's not important for the GMAT. In fact, this question is not a very good question: it is not really worth diving into depth trying to make sense of it. You will be much better served by studying high quality practice questions. Here's a high quality question:
https://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/3263

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep


Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Current Student
avatar
Status: Mr
Joined: 05 Jul 2015
Posts: 44
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GMAT 1: 720 Q48 V40
GMAT 2: 770 Q50 V46
WE: Business Development (Advertising and PR)
Re: The preliminary agreement to what was to be ...  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Sep 2015, 10:57
1
Hi Mike, love your explanations. They're very detailed and have helped me a lot so far.

I selected option C, and I eliminated A, B & E because they did not use the past perfect form - 'had started moving'
But in your explanation, you mentioned that using it when it is obvious because of the dates, is redundant and should be avoided. According to the MGMAT SC book this sentence is considered correct-
Right: Bv 1945. the United States HAD BEEN at war for several years.
It is very evident here that it happened before 1945. But it still used.
Also, in the link you've mentioned, the following sentence is given as an example for correct usage of the past perfect tense.
6) By the time Charles Darwin published The Descent of Man in 1871, Gregor Mendel already had discovered, during his famous pea plant experiments, the genetic principles that ultimately would explain and justify Darwin’s conclusions.
Here also, it is very evident.
In my opinion, using the past perfect tense is wrong here, because of the word 'before' which makes it obvious that the action happened before the date. The galore of dates has nothing to do with this. Please tell me if I'm right here or am I missing something?
If I am right, the second example on your blog is wrong as well. Because it has the word 'already' and using the past perfect tense in that sentence, makes it redundant.

Thank you very much! :)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4488
Re: The preliminary agreement to what was to be ...  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Sep 2015, 13:35
1
1
icefrog wrote:
Hi Mike, love your explanations. They're very detailed and have helped me a lot so far.

I selected option C, and I eliminated A, B & E because they did not use the past perfect form - 'had started moving'
But in your explanation, you mentioned that using it when it is obvious because of the dates, is redundant and should be avoided. According to the MGMAT SC book this sentence is considered correct-
Right: Bv 1945. the United States HAD BEEN at war for several years.
It is very evident here that it happened before 1945. But it still used.
Also, in the link you've mentioned, the following sentence is given as an example for correct usage of the past perfect tense.
6) By the time Charles Darwin published The Descent of Man in 1871, Gregor Mendel already had discovered, during his famous pea plant experiments, the genetic principles that ultimately would explain and justify Darwin’s conclusions.
Here also, it is very evident.
In my opinion, using the past perfect tense is wrong here, because of the word 'before' which makes it obvious that the action happened before the date. The galore of dates has nothing to do with this. Please tell me if I'm right here or am I missing something?
If I am right, the second example on your blog is wrong as well. Because it has the word 'already' and using the past perfect tense in that sentence, makes it redundant.

Thank you very much! :)

Dear icefrog,
I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, here's the tricky thing. Grammar is not mathematics. Mathematics has clear black vs. white, right vs. wrong procedures and answers. Grammar is not like that: a few things are totally right or totally wrong, but there are many shades of gray.

All language depends on meaning. Too often, GMAT students focus on grammar and avoid meaning, but meaning trumps grammar. In everyday conversation and academic writer, the speaker's or author's intention gives direction and focus to the words. This is deeply true on the GMAT SC as well, and students often fail to appreciate what this implies.

The use of the past perfect tense, with respect to another past tense, is one way to convey that one past action preceded another past action. Other elements of the sentence might also indicate this. There are a few issues.
1) a rhetorically sound sentence has clarity -- We use the past perfect in order to clarify the time-sequence, if it is not obvious that other elements would do that. In the MGMAT sentence, if we said:
By 1945, the United States was at war. = this implies that the was some other sequence of events before 1945, but that war itself started only in 1945 (this does not correspond to the historical facts).
By 1945, the United States was at war for several years. = this sound wrong. This is precisely what someone would say who didn't understand how to use the past perfect correctly. You see, "for several years" is a phrase that implies that it had been happening for a while, but it's not logical definitive by itself. To use this phrase with the ordinary past is jarringly wrong. The MGMAT version is the only correct version:
By 1945, the United States had been at war for several years. = That's a correct and logically satisfying sentence, because the expectation created by the phrase "for several years" is matched and fulfilled by the explicit use of the past perfect tense. The whole sentence works together. A well-designed sentence can create an expectation and then fulfill it: in a way, that's one of the functions of parallelism.

2) another issue is emotional emphasis in the sentence. Consider my sentence from the blog:
By the time Charles Darwin published The Descent of Man in 1871, Gregor Mendel already had discovered, during his famous pea plant experiments, the genetic principles that ultimately would explain and justify Darwin’s conclusions.
Part of what is happening here is similar to the last sentence. The word "already" creates an expectation, and the use of the past perfect matches and fulfills that expectation. Also, the use of the adverb "already" with the past perfect creates a subtle emphasis. It is more subtle than, say, use of italics or bold. It just creates this small emotional nudge, as if to say: "wow, can you believe this?" It is a subtle way to call attention to the difference in times, ultimately to the historical irony that Mendel's work on genetics actually preceded Darwin's book. You see, the academic language of the GMAT is very understated, and when emotional emphasis of any sort appears, it's very subtle. It is much less obvious than it would be in popular writing. For example, often just a subtle emphasis will bring out the implicit irony of a situation. Many SC questions in the OG involve some subtle degree of irony.

3) Clarity is good, but too much clarity is bad. Let's look at version (C) of this SC question.
The preliminary agreement to what was the Treaty of Utrecht was not signed until September 1711, and the final treaty in March 1713, but the peace process had started to move before the end of 1710.
The construction "what was the Treaty of Utrecht" is an awkward failure that lands between the correct structure "what was to be the Treaty of Utrecht" and just the plain and simple "Treaty of Utrecht." That's one problem with (C).
The use of the past perfect is also a problem here. Again, this is subtle. This sentence focuses on the historical sequence of events, and we have dates and years all over the place. Now, the sequence of events is very clear, almost mathematically clear. We have absolutely no doubt about what happened when, and what happened before or after what. In this environment, use of the past perfect is overkill. It crosses the line and makes things too obvious. When things are too obvious, they are redundant, and redundant is always wrong on the GMAT.

So, you see, the boundaries here are very sophisticated and subtle, and not at all amenable to simply dichotomies --- if this is right, that is wrong. In the bigger picture, especially for a non-native speaker approaching English as a second language, you simply cannot get to mastery on GMAT SC by trying to learn some list of "rules." Yes, the rules of grammar are important, and the more deeply you can understand each one it all its nuances, the better you will understand, but ultimately, you cannot develop an "ear" for sophisticated grammar without reading. I highly recommend this blog:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/how-to-imp ... bal-score/
Nothing replaces the habit of reading for building a deep intuition for the language.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep


Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2990
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
The preliminary agreement to what was to be ...  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Feb 2017, 02:32
techiesam wrote:
Dear sayantanc2k ,

I need your help on this question.Don't we need a noun after "agreement to". Is putting a clause after the infinitive is grammatically right??


There is no infinitive in the part you mentioned. (Infinitive: to + verb , e.g.: to go, to play, to read etc.).

Now, coming to your question, "agreement to" should ideally be followed by a noun or a pronoun ( agreement to something). Here the pronoun "what" correctly follows "agreement to". This pronoun refers to the something that "was to be the Treaty of Utrecht". It is alright to replace "something that was to be.." by " what was to be...".
Verbal Forum Moderator
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 415
Premium Member
Re: The preliminary agreement to what was to be ...  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Apr 2017, 08:30
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Please Read: Verbal Posting Rules

Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 3377
Premium Member
Re: The preliminary agreement to what was to be ...  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Oct 2018, 06:18
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________

-
April 2018: New Forum dedicated to Verbal Strategies, Guides, and Resources

GMAT Club Bot
Re: The preliminary agreement to what was to be ... &nbs [#permalink] 31 Oct 2018, 06:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The preliminary agreement to what was to be ...

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron
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®.