GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 03 Apr 2020, 04:15

### 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

# The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 62469
The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Nov 2019, 23:05
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

91% (00:43) correct 9% (01:20) wrong based on 77 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Competition Mode Question

The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in a 1972 law, differed considerably from the plaintiff, who contended that a landmark 1999 Supreme Court decision supported his argument.

(A) the plaintiff
(B) that of the plaintiff
(C) those from the plaintiff
(D) that espoused by the plaintiff
(E) that from the plaintiff

_________________
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 18 Aug 2017
Posts: 6051
Location: India
Concentration: Sustainability, Marketing
GPA: 4
WE: Marketing (Energy and Utilities)
Re: The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Nov 2019, 23:47
1
IMO B is correct that of the plaintiff
comparision being done here

The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in a 1972 law, differed considerably from [url]the plaintiff[/url], who contended that a landmark 1999 Supreme Court decision supported his argument.

(A) the plaintiff
(B) that of the plaintiff
(C) those from the plaintiff
(D) that espoused by the plaintiff
(E) that from the plaintiff
SVP
Joined: 20 Jul 2017
Posts: 1510
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Marketing
WE: Education (Education)
Re: The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2019, 00:22
1
Question is comparing "prosecutor’s argument"
Right Comparison --> argument of plaintiff or " that of the plaintiff"

IMO Option B
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Mar 2019
Posts: 485
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: Ross '22, ISB '20, NUS '20
GMAT 1: 580 Q48 V21
GPA: 4
Re: The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2019, 01:13
1
The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in a 1972 law, differed considerably from the plaintiff, who contended that a landmark 1999 Supreme Court decision supported his argument................comparision error,....here The prosecutor’s argument is compared with the plaintiff........but it should be with the argument of the plaintiff.....

(B) that of the plaintiff.........rectifies the error........CORRECT

OA:B
CR Forum Moderator
Joined: 18 May 2019
Posts: 800
Re: The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2019, 02:57
1
The right answer is option B.

This is a comparison question. A basic requirement for comparisons is parallelisms of the entities being compared. What two entities are being compared: 1. The prosecutor's argument and 2. the argument of the plaintiff.
Option A is incorrect because it illogically compares the prosecutor's argument to the plaintiff.
Option C is incorrect because those is a plural pronoun, and it cannot refer to the singular noun argument. The prosecutor made an argument, it has to be compared with an argument made by the plaintiff.

The final split required to pick the right choice between B, D, and E is the alternative way prosecutor's argument can be written. The prosecutor's argument is the same as the argument of the prosecutor. So we know that the right preposition is of the plaintiff in order to ensure parallelism. Based on this, we can eliminate options D and E, which use by and from erroneously.

The right answer is option B.

The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in a 1972 law, differed considerably from the plaintiff, who contended that a landmark 1999 Supreme Court decision supported his argument.

(A) the plaintiff
(B) that of the plaintiff
(C) those from the plaintiff
(D) that espoused by the plaintiff
(E) that from the plaintiff
VP
Joined: 24 Nov 2016
Posts: 1360
Location: United States
Re: The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2019, 06:58
1
Quote:
The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in a 1972 law, differed considerably from the plaintiff, who contended that a landmark 1999 Supreme Court decision supported his argument.

(A) the plaintiff
(B) that of the plaintiff
(C) those from the plaintiff
(D) that espoused by the plaintiff
(E) that from the plaintiff

MEANING
Pro's argument differed from Plain's argument;
We are comparing a single argument vs a single argument.

Ans (B)
Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2019
Posts: 116
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
WE: Brand Management (Consumer Products)
Re: The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2019, 10:46
1
The prosecutor’s argument is compared with the argument of the plaintiff
-> B is correct: that of the plaintiff
_________________
--- One day you will thank yourself for not giving up ---
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2017
Posts: 250
Re: The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2019, 12:11
1
The prosecutor’s argument differed from argument of (that of) the plaintiff.

Ans B

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2019
Posts: 67
Location: United States
Re: The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2019, 17:53
1
The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in a 1972 law, differed considerably from the plaintiff, who contended that a landmark 1999 Supreme Court decision supported his argument.

(A) the plaintiff
wrong: the prosecutors's argument cannot be parallel with the plaintiff

(B) that of the plaintiff
correct

(C) those from the plaintiff
wrong: "of" should be used instead of "from".

(D) that espoused by the plaintiff
wrong: wrong meaning

(E) that from the plaintiff
Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2019
Posts: 172
Re: The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2019, 22:58
1
The comparison is between the prosecutors argument and with that of plaintiff

In option A The prosecutor's argument is correctly compared with plaintiff

In option C use of those is incorrect

In option D and E are incorrect bcz of meaning error

IMO B

Posted from my mobile device
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 62469
Re: The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2019, 23:26
Bunuel wrote:

Competition Mode Question

The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in a 1972 law, differed considerably from the plaintiff, who contended that a landmark 1999 Supreme Court decision supported his argument.

(A) the plaintiff
(B) that of the plaintiff
(C) those from the plaintiff
(D) that espoused by the plaintiff
(E) that from the plaintiff

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

When making a comparison, you must compare like parts (i.e., compare an argument to an argument). You cannot compare unlike parts (i.e., an argument with a person). To correct the issue, we must compare the prosecutor’s argument with the plaintiff's argument (i.e., with that of the plaintiff).

A. the sentence illogically compares unlike parts (i.e., the prosecutor’s argument and the plaintiff)

B. the sentence logically compares the prosecutor’s argument with that of the plaintiff (i.e., with the argument of the plaintiff)

C. the plural those improperly refers to a singular argument when the singular that should be used instead

D. the phrase that espoused by the plaintiff is unduly wordy

E. the word from improperly makes the sentence not parallel (i.e., the argument of the prosecutor is not parallel with the argument from the plaintiff)
_________________
Re: The prosecutor’s argument, which hinged on a little known provision in   [#permalink] 28 Nov 2019, 23:26
Display posts from previous: Sort by