The telecom minister had been indicted by the Supreme court

Just a small question. Should't which be used to modify the noun, WHICH directly preceeds it?
In this case, the indiction resulted in the loss... Should'nt(E) be the right answer?

Comments are appreciated....

Indiction resulted in the loss? Sorry no; indiction came much later than the fraud and the resultant loss. To avoid confusion, we have to fix the loss to the scam and that is why we have to take a choice that states the pronoun after the scam. C wins over E

D. is indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam that resulted // wrong tense is -present , indicted -past

"is indicated" is correct as in "This is done" - "is" is the verb and "indicated" is the past participle.
The problem is - we are referring to a completed action and we cannot use present simple tense.

Choice A is wrong because of the past perfect tense. The tense of "resulted" should be happened before the tense of "indicted".

Choice B is ambiguous because of the change in the setence of the 2G spectrum scam and Supreme Court. If set as the choice B, I will think differently that the 2G spectrum scam is caused by the Supreme court

Choice C is the most appropriate choice.

Choice D, the present tense of indicted is not good, and that resulted will be consider to modify the Supreme Court, not 2G spectrum cam

Choice E, the act of indicted by Supreme Court does not result in loss, that is the 2G spectrum scam.

Hi Gautam

I do not think you understood the meaning clearly.

2G spectrum scam resulted in a loss of about $1.7 trillion to the exchequer. Therefore, the Supreme court indicted the telecom minister.
Option E suggests exactly the opposite that the indictment of the telecom minister led to a loss to the exchequer. Indictment never costs that much.

I find it difficult to understand tenses sometimes.
Could you please throw some light on why pairing is with indicted doesn't make sense.

Can a sentence which has 'is' and 'verb-ed' ever be right?

Regards,
Sach

The telecom minister had been indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam,
which resulted in a loss of about $1.7 trillion to the exchequer.

A. had been indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam, which
resulted

B. has been indicted in the 2G spectrum scam by the Supreme court, which
resulted

C. has been indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam,
which resulted

D. is indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam that resulted

E. has been indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam, resulting

C seems best : has been indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam,
which resulted

faults :

A. had been indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam, which
resulted

B. has been indicted in the 2G spectrum scam by the Supreme court, which
resulted

C. has been indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam,
which resulted----->correct

D. is indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam that resulted

E. has been indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam, resulting

The telecom minister had been indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam,
which resulted in a loss of about $1.7 trillion to the exchequer.

A) The indiction and the loss happened at the same time, so it is not a case of two past events. So 'A' is wrong

B)2G Spectrum scam by the Supreme court is erroneous. B is wrong

C) The loss is still relevant now , so 'has been' fits the bill. C is the answer

D) 'is indicted' and 'resulted' dont go together. Not D

E) 'indicted' and 'resulting' are not parallel.

Hope this helps

The telecom minister had been indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam, which resulted in a loss of about $1.7 trillion to the exchequer

A. had been indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam, which resulted

Had been not required ; there is no requirement to show 2 events here

B. has been indicted in the 2G spectrum scam by the Supreme court, which resulted
Which modifies supreme court so wrong

C. has been indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam, which resulted
Best of the lot here

D. is indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam that resulted
IS and resulted - nah doesnt look proper to me and clearly we are talking in the past here

E. has been indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam, resulting
resulting could have been the answer but its a wrong modifier here

A good discussion is here :

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... 13554.html

Thanks a ton for that. Helped me to solve an argument with my friends over this question.

A. had been is incorrect
B. here which modifies the Supreme Court instead of the 2G scam
C. Correct
D. is indicted will be incorrect
E. Incorrect. the sentence seems to mean that the whole act of indicting the minister by the SC has resulted in a loss to the exchequer instead of the 2G scam causing the loss

Need help , Well I couldn't trace the error/errors in choice D , can't " that " refer to 2G Spectrum Scam ??
What is wrong with using is in this sentence ?

Hey Siddhuftr ,

Problem with D is the change in the tense usage and hence the entire meaning of the sentence. D implies the action is happening in the present while the original meaning is action started in the past and is still in progress.

Also, "that" is a restrictive modifier and it refers to the noun nearest to it. When I am changing the modifier from which to that, I am implying there could be multiple 2G spectrum scams and I am talking about the one that resulted in a loss of $1.7 trillion. This is not the case. The meaning of the sentence is 2G scam was one and this scam led to the given loss. hence, we have used "which" (non restrictive modifier).

Does that make sense?

A. had been indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam, which resulted wrong tense

B. has been indicted in the 2G spectrum scam by the Supreme court, which resulted wrong modifier

C. has been indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam, which resulted [b]Correct

D. is indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam that resulted wrong tense

E. has been indicted by the Supreme court in the 2G spectrum scam, resulting wrong modifier

If conducting fraud would result in a loss, why would you participate in illegal activity? Also, once you’re indicted, you lose money. What?

Posted from my mobile device