Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 06:20 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 06:20
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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   3   
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,930
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,930
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 31 May 2021, 17:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
If you look up the definition of qualify, you’ll find this:
1a : to reduce from a general to a particular or restricted form
b : to make less harsh or strict
c : to alter the strength or flavor of
d : to limit or modify the meaning of
2 : to characterize by naming an attribute :
3a : to fit by training, skill, or ability for a special purpose
(1) : to declare competent or adequate
(2) : to invest with legal capacity

In your example you used definition 3a(1), I believe.

Which definition do you think the author was thinking of?

Posted from my mobile device
Show more

Quote:
Hi avigutman - What the author is trying to convey - looking for something that says "Complete support" | 100 % backing | "Support through thick and thin" |

Amongst these given, 1a stated above is the POLAR opposite of what I am looking for.

Hence the answer must be 1a (but opposite flow)

Opposite of 1a, i.e Un-qualify) to expand from a particular or restricted form to a general form
Show more

Agreed jabhatta2 regarding 1a definition.
Now, do you see a difference in meaning between 'unqualifying support' and 'unqualified support'? The former is a present participle and the latter is a past participle, but they also have different meanings.
By analogy, consider 'unfettering access' vs 'unfettered access', or 'unrestricting drivers licence' vs 'unrestricted drivers licence'.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 31 May 2021, 18:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman
Quote:
Hi avigutman - What the author is trying to convey - looking for something that says "Complete support" | 100 % backing | "Support through thick and thin" |

Amongst these given, 1a stated above is the POLAR opposite of what I am looking for.

Hence the answer must be 1a (but opposite flow)

Opposite of 1a, i.e Un-qualify) to expand from a particular or restricted form to a general form

Agreed jabhatta2 regarding 1a definition.

Now, do you see a difference in meaning between 'unqualifying support' and 'unqualified support'? The former is a present participle and the latter is a past participle, but they also have different meanings.
By analogy, consider 'unfettering access' vs 'unfettered access', or 'unrestricting drivers licence' vs 'unrestricted drivers licence'.
Show more

Hi avigutman - i think i see what you are saying is : Given the women are recieving something -- it makes sense to be in the passive voice. Hence "unqualified" [past participle and indicative of passive voice] makes more sense

For your other examples, given you are recieving "access" or recieving a drivers license : it makes sense to be in the past participle.

I don't think there is anything wrong about the present participle in a sentence like this :

Obama's unqualifying support towards Biden is clear

Here i think the present participle should be okay as Obama is the one actually performing the action
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,930
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,930
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 31 May 2021, 18:50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
I don't think there is anything wrong about the present participle in a sentence like this :

Obama's unqualifying support towards Biden is clear

Here i think the present participle should be okay as Obama is the one actually performing the action
Show more

Ah, but Obama isn't unqualifying Biden, so I don't think passive/active voice is relevant here:
Obama is supporting Biden, and that support is unqualified.

Do these help?

Your unfettering access to the beach is guaranteed
Your unfettered access to the beach is guaranteed.

This unrestricting drivers licence is hard to get.
This unrestricted drivers licence is hard to get.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 31 May 2021, 19:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman
jabhatta2
I don't think there is anything wrong about the present participle in a sentence like this :

Obama's unqualifying support towards Biden is clear

Here i think the present participle should be okay as Obama is the one actually performing the action

Ah, but Obama isn't unqualifying Biden, so I don't think passive/active voice is relevant here:
Obama is supporting Biden, and that support is unqualified.

Do these help?

Your unfettering access to the beach is guaranteed
Your unfettered access to the beach is guaranteed.

This unrestricting drivers licence is hard to get.
This unrestricted drivers licence is hard to get.
Show more

Sorry avigutman - i am not sure i understand the last post.

i) I don't understand what you mean when you say "Ah, but Obama isn't unqualifying Biden. I thought the present participle has to do with Obama only, nothing to do with Biden.
ii)Are you saying, all the 4 highlghts in yellow are good to go ?
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,930
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,930
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 31 May 2021, 19:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
avigutman
jabhatta2
I don't think there is anything wrong about the present participle in a sentence like this :

Obama's unqualifying support towards Biden is clear

Here i think the present participle should be okay as Obama is the one actually performing the action

Ah, but Obama isn't unqualifying Biden, so I don't think passive/active voice is relevant here:
Obama is supporting Biden, and that support is unqualified.

Do these help?

Your unfettering access to the beach is guaranteed
Your unfettered access to the beach is guaranteed.

This unrestricting drivers licence is hard to get.
This unrestricted drivers licence is hard to get.

Sorry avigutman - i am not sure i understand the last post.

Are you saying, all the 4 highlghts in yellow are good to go ?
Show more

Sorry I should’ve clarified: I’m asking you what you think. Present participle? Past participle? Both? In your opinion, what works in these examples?

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 31 May 2021, 20:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman
avigutman
jabhatta2
I don't think there is anything wrong about the present participle in a sentence like this :

Obama's unqualifying support towards Biden is clear

Here i think the present participle should be okay as Obama is the one actually performing the action

Ah, but Obama isn't unqualifying Biden, so I don't think passive/active voice is relevant here:
Obama is supporting Biden, and that support is unqualified.

Do these help?

1) Your unfettering access to the beach is guaranteed
2) Your unfettered access to the beach is guaranteed.

3) This unrestricting drivers licence is hard to get.
4) This unrestricted drivers licence is hard to get.

Sorry I should’ve clarified: I’m asking you what you think. Present participle? Past participle? Both? In your opinion, what works in these examples?
Show more

Hi avigutman - Starting with drivers licenses first.

Between 3 and 4 - both make sense in different contexts

3) Here the drivers license specifically is giving you access to restricted areas (Say a bank safe) - the drivers license is performing an action (i.e. action as in giving you acess to the bank safe)
4) Here the drivers license has action done upon it. So this most likely is referring to a **type** of drivers license

Between 1 and 2 - first does not make sense whereas the 2nd i think is okay.
1) I don't think the present participle makes sense. Access by itself cannot be performing the action of "unrestricting"
2) I think this makes sense. Because "Access" has had action done upon it. [the action of being unrestricted is forced upon the subject "Access"]
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,930
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,930
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 01 Jun 2021, 02:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman


1) Your unfettering access to the beach is guaranteed
2) Your unfettered access to the beach is guaranteed.

3) This unrestricting drivers licence is hard to get.
4) This unrestricted drivers licence is hard to get.
Show more

jabhatta2
Hi avigutman - Starting with drivers licenses first.

Between 3 and 4 - both make sense in different contexts

3) Here the drivers license specifically is giving you access to restricted areas (Say a bank safe) - the drivers license is performing an action (i.e. action as in giving you acess to the bank safe)
4) Here the drivers license has action done upon it. So this most likely is referring to a **type** of drivers license

Between 1 and 2 - first does not make sense whereas the 2nd i think is okay.
1) I don't think the present participle makes sense. Access by itself cannot be performing the action of "unrestricting"
2) I think this makes sense. Because "Access" has had action done upon it. [the action of being unrestricted is forced upon the subject "Access"]
Show more

jabhatta2 perfect analysis!! Now, can you apply the same thinking to the original phrase, and to your example about Obama and Biden?
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 02 Jun 2021, 07:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman
avigutman


1) Your unfettering access to the beach is guaranteed
2) Your unfettered access to the beach is guaranteed.

3) This unrestricting drivers licence is hard to get.
4) This unrestricted drivers licence is hard to get.

jabhatta2
Hi avigutman - Starting with drivers licenses first.

Between 3 and 4 - both make sense in different contexts

3) Here the drivers license specifically is giving you access to restricted areas (Say a bank safe) - the drivers license is performing an action (i.e. action as in giving you acess to the bank safe)
4) Here the drivers license has action done upon it. So this most likely is referring to a **type** of drivers license

Between 1 and 2 - first does not make sense whereas the 2nd i think is okay.
1) I don't think the present participle makes sense. Access by itself cannot be performing the action of "unrestricting"
2) I think this makes sense. Because "Access" has had action done upon it. [the action of being unrestricted is forced upon the subject "Access"]

jabhatta2 perfect analysis!! Now, can you apply the same thinking to the original phrase, and to your example about Obama and Biden?
Show more

Hi avigutman

A) The three women, have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support
B) The three women, have consistently received the unqualified support of labor
C) Obama's unqualifying support towards Biden is clear

A) I think in sentence A - my mistake was thinking "labor" was the subject and thus the performer of the "unqualifying". Actually the subject is Support. It's as if the Support somehow is performing the action of "Unqualifying" which does not make logical sense.

B) I think unqualified support indicates action is being done on support. It's referring to a "Type" of support which makes more sense.

C) Sentence C like sentence A, I think this may not be right because "Obama" is not the subject of unqualifying. It's support that is the subject and support cannot be performing the act of unqualifying.

I think you have to use "Unqualifying" in the past participle (indicating a type of Support) and not in the present participle because you cannot say

i) Unqualifying Obama = does not make sense
ii) Unqualifying support of Obama = does not make sense as "Support" cannot be peforming the action of "Unqualifying"
iii) Unqualified support of Obama = i think makes sense as its a type of "support"
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 30 Sep 2025
Posts: 1,293
Own Kudos:
1,930
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,293
Kudos: 1,930
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 02 Jun 2021, 08:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2

Hi avigutman

A) The three women, have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support
B) The three women, have consistently received the unqualified support of labor
C) Obama's unqualifying support towards Biden is clear

A) I think in sentence A - my mistake was thinking "labor" was the subject and thus the performer of the "unqualifying". Actually the subject is Support. It's as if the Support somehow is performing the action of "Unqualifying" which does not make logical sense.

B) I think unqualified support indicates action is being done on support. It's referring to a "Type" of support which makes more sense.

C) Sentence C like sentence A, I think this may not be right because "Obama" is not the subject of unqualifying. It's support that is the subject and support cannot be performing the act of unqualifying.

I think you have to use "Unqualifying" in the past participle (indicating a type of Support) and not in the present participle because you cannot say

i) Unqualifying Obama = does not make sense
ii) Unqualifying support of Obama = does not make sense as "Support" cannot be peforming the action of "Unqualifying"
iii) Unqualified support of Obama = i think makes sense as its a type of "support"
Show more

Very well done!!
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 02 Jun 2021, 10:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avigutman


Very well done!!
Show more

Thanks so much avigutman for all your help
User avatar
Crytiocanalyst
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2021
Last visit: 27 May 2023
Posts: 950
Own Kudos:
208
Given Kudos: 309
Posts: 950
Kudos: 208
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 31 Jul 2021, 11:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(A) have consistently received labor’s unqualifying support
unqualifying provides ambigious meaning

(B) are consistently receiving the unqualifying support of labor
are isn't the right use of tense

(C) have consistently received the unqualified support of labor
This nails the meaning and tense hence let us hang on to it

(D) receive consistent and unqualified support by labor
by isn't the right usage added on recieve isn't the right usage

(E) are receiving consistent and unqualified support by labor
Similar reasoning as D

Hence IMO C
User avatar
thangvietnam
User avatar
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Last visit: 09 Mar 2023
Posts: 768
Own Kudos:
418
Given Kudos: 2,198
Posts: 768
Kudos: 418
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in Updated on: 09 Dec 2021, 07:38
Originally posted by thangvietnam on 10 Aug 2021, 07:26.
Last edited by thangvietnam on 09 Dec 2021, 07:38, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
this problem is about tense.

simple present, and present perfect is used frequently and are basic tense. but this dose not mean we master these basic tenses.

it is funny that we master these tenses by reading some explanations of experts who are native speakers. some persons said we do not need to be grammarian to excel on gmat. this is correct. but we do need to master basic grammar points to excel on gmat.

we need to read a grammar book to master the basic points of grammar. we do not need to learn hard and not basic grammar points. gmat test only the basic point of grammar. this is absolutely correct and so, we need to focus on basic points when reading grammar books. so, be careful when you read grammar books.

I Have failed gmat many years. so, I want to give you the helping words.

now, I consider myself too ambitious to make you understand simple tense and present perfect tense with a few lines of words. you need to read a few pages in good grammar books to master these tenses to solve this problem properly

simple tense is used to show an event existing at the moment of speaking or an event exist indefinitely , before, in and after moment of speaking

present perfect is used to connect event past to present time.

those are 2 sentences which will help you learn grammars books.

only present perfect is fit . only choice C is fit

read about tenses in good grammar books. and dont read the not basic points. you yourself find out which points are basic and which points are not
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 06 Dec 2021, 21:28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi GMATNinja - i see you used 'tense' to eliminate Option B / Option D and Option E here

Given the adverb "consistently " implied the verb started in the past - we can eliminate tenses that are in the present tense / present continous

But dont we say the following :

(i) I am receiving money consistently from Jack
(ii) The sun is rising in the east for the last 10,000 years
(iii) X runs 10 kms daily

The present continous / present tense in these purple sentences (am recieving / is rising /runs ) seem okay to me even though the adverbs in the bold {consistently / for the last 10,000 years / daily) something that started in the past

Thoughts on my usage of the tenses against the adverbs in purple - are they really wrong ? I certainly woul be okay with these sentences in the purple.
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,195
Own Kudos:
4,765
Given Kudos: 43
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: 5,195
Kudos: 4,765
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 07 Dec 2021, 07:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
Hi GMATNinja - i see you used 'tense' to eliminate Option B / Option D and Option E here

Given the adverb "consistently " implied the verb started in the past - we can eliminate tenses that are in the present tense / present continous

But dont we say the following :

(i) I am receiving money consistently from Jack
(ii) The sun is rising in the east for the last 10,000 years
(iii) X runs 10 kms daily

The present continous / present tense in these purple sentences (am recieving / is rising /runs ) seem okay to me even though the adverbs in the bold {consistently / for the last 10,000 years / daily) something that started in the past

Thoughts on my usage of the tenses against the adverbs in purple - are they really wrong ? I certainly woul be okay with these sentences in the purple.
Show more

Hello jabhatta2,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can resolve your doubts.

The first and second sentences you have presented here are, unfortunately, incorrect. The third sentence is correct, as it refers to a habitual action rather than to one that started in the past and continues into the present, meaning the use of the simple present tense verb "runs" is correct. Please remember, habitual actions are best conveyed through the simple present tense.

The first and second sentences refer to actions that began in the past and continue into the present, as conveyed through the "consistently..." phrases, meaning the correct verb for the first and second sentences are the present perfect continuous tense verbs "have been receiving" and "has been rising", respectively.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,783
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,783
 [1]
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 07 Dec 2021, 20:36
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
Hi GMATNinja - i see you used 'tense' to eliminate Option B / Option D and Option E here

Given the adverb "consistently " implied the verb started in the past - we can eliminate tenses that are in the present tense / present continous

But dont we say the following :

(i) I am receiving money consistently from Jack
(ii) The sun is rising in the east for the last 10,000 years
(iii) X runs 10 kms daily

The present continous / present tense in these purple sentences (am recieving / is rising /runs ) seem okay to me even though the adverbs in the bold {consistently / for the last 10,000 years / daily) something that started in the past

Thoughts on my usage of the tenses against the adverbs in purple - are they really wrong ? I certainly woul be okay with these sentences in the purple.
Show more
I'd be careful about trying to create a rule here. While the present tense didn't seem logical in this question, it's not true that you could never use a present tense verb with "consistently."

For instance:

    "Matisse Thybulle is consistently the best defensive player -- and the worst offensive player -- on the floor."

This seems fine to me, since the sentence is describing a current general state of affairs, as opposed to an action that's actually happening right now.

So I wouldn't necessarily say that your first sentence is a definitive error -- it could be a general state of affairs that you're getting money from someone.

However, because the second sentence specifies a specific timeframe that stretches far into the past ("for the last 10,000 years"), the present tense is wrong there.

And the third sentence seems fine because the time period "daily" could, again, be a current state of affairs.

The takeaway: universal rules won't work here. You need to think about the logic and context of each sentence you see to decide whether the verb tense seems right. And if you're not sure, then try not to use verb tense as a decision point. Simple as that.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 01 Jan 2022, 17:46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi GMATGuruNY - Could you please explain what you meant in the yellow.

Are you saying in A and in B -

The Support itself is performing the action of unqualifying ?

If so, why do you say that ?

I thought in A and B -- it was clear that "labor" was performing the action of unqualifying .
Attachments

Picture.JPG
Picture.JPG [ 127.79 KiB | Viewed 1859 times ]

User avatar
GMATGuruNY
User avatar
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,344
Own Kudos:
3,796
 [1]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,344
Kudos: 3,796
 [1]
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 04 Jan 2022, 16:20
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
Hi GMATGuruNY - Could you please explain what you meant in the yellow.

Are you saying in A and in B -

The Support itself is performing the action of unqualifying ?

If so, why do you say that ?

I thought in A and B -- it was clear that "labor" was performing the action of unqualifying .
Show more

Analysts are concerned about the company's falling stock price.
Here, the company is clearly not falling; the STOCK PRICE is falling.
The possessive in blue implies the following:
A FALLING STOCK PRICE is attributed to the company.

The same line of reasoning applies to A and B.
A: labor's unqualifying support
Here, labor is not unqualifying; the SUPPORT Is unqualifying.
The possessive in blue conveys the following:
UNQUALIFYING SUPPORT is attributed to labor.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 04 Jan 2022, 17:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATGuruNY
jabhatta2
Hi GMATGuruNY - Could you please explain what you meant in the yellow.

Are you saying in A and in B -

The Support itself is performing the action of unqualifying ?

If so, why do you say that ?

I thought in A and B -- it was clear that "labor" was performing the action of unqualifying .

Analysts are concerned about the company's falling stock price.
Here, the company is clearly not falling; the STOCK PRICE is falling.
The possessive in blue implies the following:
A FALLING STOCK PRICE is attributed to the company.

The same line of reasoning applies to A and B.
A: labor's unqualifying support
Here, labor is not unqualifying; the SUPPORT Is unqualifying.
The possessive in blue conveys the following:
UNQUALIFYING SUPPORT is attributed to labor.
Show more

Thank you so much GMATGuruNY --

I agree with what you wrote in yellow above and to me, there is actually nothing wrong in saying -The SUPPORT Is unqualifying.

SUPPORT Is unqualifying makes sense to me because

1) In my head, To qualify means To limit.
  • Thus to To UN-qualify means to be limitless / be infinite / reaching the sky / having no boundries.

Thus, going back to the yellow statement you mention

Here, labor is not unqualifying; the SUPPORT Is unqualifying.

The yellow makes logical sense because

- The SUPPORT is unlimited / the SUPPORT is infinite / the SUPPORT knows no boundries
- This type of support is attributed to the labor party

I dont see why SUPPORT Is unqualifying. is perhaps wrong
User avatar
GMATGuruNY
User avatar
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,344
Own Kudos:
3,796
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,344
Kudos: 3,796
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 04 Jan 2022, 18:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
GMATGuruNY
jabhatta2
Hi GMATGuruNY - Could you please explain what you meant in the yellow.

Are you saying in A and in B -

The Support itself is performing the action of unqualifying ?

If so, why do you say that ?

I thought in A and B -- it was clear that "labor" was performing the action of unqualifying .

Analysts are concerned about the company's falling stock price.
Here, the company is clearly not falling; the STOCK PRICE is falling.
The possessive in blue implies the following:
A FALLING STOCK PRICE is attributed to the company.

The same line of reasoning applies to A and B.
A: labor's unqualifying support
Here, labor is not unqualifying; the SUPPORT Is unqualifying.
The possessive in blue conveys the following:
UNQUALIFYING SUPPORT is attributed to labor.

Thank you so much GMATGuruNY --

I agree with what you wrote in yellow above and to me, there is actually nothing wrong in saying -The SUPPORT Is unqualifying.

SUPPORT Is unqualifying makes sense to me because

1) In my head, To qualify means To limit.
  • Thus to To UN-qualify means to be limitless / be infinite / reaching the sky / having no boundries.

Thus, going back to the yellow statement you mention

Here, labor is not unqualifying; the SUPPORT Is unqualifying.

The yellow makes logical sense because

- The SUPPORT is unlimited / the SUPPORT is infinite / the SUPPORT knows no boundries
- This type of support is attributed to the labor party

I dont see why SUPPORT Is unqualifying. is perhaps wrong
Show more

unqualifying is not a real word, even if it can be found in some dictionaries.
I just typed unqualifying into Google.
The search did not reveal a single book or article with the word unqualifying.

In your latest post, you state that the support is unlimited.
The proper synonym for unlimited is UNQUALIFIED, as in the OA:
the UNQUALIFIED support of labor
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in 06 Jan 2022, 16:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATGuruNY

unqualifying is not a real word, even if it can be found in some dictionaries.
I just typed unqualifying into Google.
The search did not reveal a single book or article with the word unqualifying.

Show more

Hi GMATGuruNY - if you dont know unqualifying is NOT a real word - is there any other way to eliminate A and B ? Trying to figure out a way to eliminate A and B using meaning / logic.

ii) I was wondering if verb-tense (marked in reds in the pic) was a genuine split ?
Attachments

pic #3.JPG
pic #3.JPG [ 72.3 KiB | Viewed 1720 times ]

   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
188 posts