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

It is currently 16 Jul 2018, 16:45

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

There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si

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

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Mar 2012
Posts: 334
Schools: Schulich '16
Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jul 2016, 02:15
LOl.

i cancelled out A first because of 'their'.

Later one by one by POE. i marked all choices including E also out ( wrong coz of the modifier at the end , which seemed not grammatical.)

ofcourse C and D were incorrect i looked again at option A,B and E.

B was wrong because of wrong comparison and E as i stated above.

A seemed the best out of the lot.(all of these 3 choices used plural verb for monkfish, which later i thought is ok )
1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
B
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 607
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jul 2016, 00:32
1
mymba99 wrote:
There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that
can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

A. There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of
monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion
through overfishing.
B. There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or
haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being
overfished.
C. There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not
for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.
D. Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish,
which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.
E. Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching
monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.


Answer is A

A. There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.
CORRECT

B. There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.
WRONG:- Meaning change :- The placement of "unlike cod and hammock" suggest that cod and hammock are unlikely to be caught. "contributes to depleting them" is wrong

C. There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.
WRONG:-Placement of "but not for monkfish" is wrong, "WHICH" modifies the phrase immediately before it. It seems monkfish are themselves contributing to their depletion.
",but not for monkfish," is also bound within commas- this is incorrect because "but not for monkfish" is an essential information and cannot be places within commas. (information inside the double commas is additional and can be ignored)

D. Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.
WRONG:- Wrong comparison. Cod and haddock are nouns that are compared verb/action "catching monkfish"

E. Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.
WRONG:- Too many possessive pronouns without clear subject.
_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.

Expert Post
Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3198
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Dec 2016, 06:02
The OA is correct and explanations provided in the thread appear sufficient. If there are any specific questions, please post them here and then click again on the "Request Expert Reply" button - users are requested not to click the button without posting their queries.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 286
Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jan 2017, 01:49
dear experts or mikemcgarry

I am curious about the use of "for", IMO, I think the word "for" here is correct, because "for" indicates a comparison.
I have a example from OG16 SC # 77
While the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants, the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants make the electricity they generate more expensive

please confirm whether the word "for" is correct here.

furthermore, I am not sure why "which" is nonsensical if refers to "monkfish".

last, how should I identify monkfish" is singular or plural ? both singular pronoun "it" and plural pronoun "their" / "they" appear in 5 options.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 16 Apr 2016
Posts: 29
Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 22 Jan 2017, 11:05
2
Hi Verbal Experts,

Can you please explain why the correct answer is "correct" in the question below? This question is from GMAT prep. Your help is greatly appreciated!

There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

A. There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing
B. There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.
C. There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing .
D. Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.
E. Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.

Also, can you please clarify whether "as" can begin a clause?

Thank you!

Originally posted by Conquergmat5 on 22 Jan 2017, 10:29.
Last edited by carcass on 22 Jan 2017, 11:05, edited 1 time in total.
Edited the title
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 12 Mar 2013
Posts: 296
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jan 2017, 11:56
There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

A. There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.
B. There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.
C. There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.
D. Unlike cod and haddock, [color=#ff0000]there are no legal size limits [/color]on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.
E. Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.


A is the correct answer
_________________

We Shall Overcome... One day...

VP
VP
User avatar
P
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1197
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jul 2017, 07:57
There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that
can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.
A. There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of
monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion
through overfishing.

B. There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or
haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being
overfished.
Wrong comparison
C. There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not
for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.

Which is used wrongly , a tricky way to make which ambiguous.

D. Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish,
which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.

Wrong comparison

E. Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching
monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.

Awkward and wrong comparison .
_________________

Please give kudos if you found my answers useful

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 06 Jul 2016
Posts: 417
Location: Singapore
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2017, 05:51
mymba99 wrote:
There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

(A) There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

(B) There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.

(C) There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.

(D) Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.

(E) Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.


A - No grammatical errors. Only 'their' referring to monkfish seems odd, as monkfish seems singular.
B - Incorrect Comparison comparing 2 fishes (Nouns) with a clause.
C - Monkfish contributes to it's own depletion. OUT.
D - Same as B + Illogical meaning -> This sentence implies that the monkfish chooses to be overfished. OUT.
E - Incorrect comparison between catching the 2 fishes with legal size limit.

A is the answer through POE, although that 'their' still seems weird unless monkfish is considered plural.
_________________

Put in the work, and that dream score is yours!

VP
VP
User avatar
P
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1197
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2017, 11:08
mymba99 wrote:
There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

(A) There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

(B) There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.

(C) There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.

(D) Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.

(E) Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.


Imo A

B there is incorrect comparison legal limits is compared to cod or haddock.
C Here size is compared to monkfish , which is also used incorrectly .
D which used wrongly and comparison disaster .
E This one does not make sense and use of particle modifier .
_________________

Please give kudos if you found my answers useful

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 09 Nov 2016
Posts: 56
Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Oct 2017, 00:46
Hello Experts,

How is option A correct?
their in option A can refer to cod or haddock or monk fish, right?

Could someone please explain me this?

Thanks
Expert Post
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1821
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Oct 2017, 11:12
snjainpune wrote:
Hello Experts,

How is option A correct?
their in option A can refer to cod or haddock or monkfish, right?

Could someone please explain me this?

Thanks

In most -- but certainly not all! -- cases, the pronoun "their" will refer to the most recent plural noun on the GMAT. In (A), "monkfish" is the closest plural, so there are absolutely no worries about pronoun ambiguity in this case.

For what it's worth, pronoun ambiguity isn't an absolute rule on the GMAT, anyway. For more on this, check out our YouTube webinar on pronouns: https://gmatclub.com/forum/ucp.php?i=164.

For any other questions on this particular SC exercise, check out the excellent explanations in these links:


_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jan 2016
Posts: 209
Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Oct 2017, 08:15
(A) There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

(B) There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished. wrong comparison

(C) There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing. which refers to monkfish but its not the monkfish itself that contributes to its depletion, its the fact that there are no legal limits on monkfish that leads to depletion.

(D) Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished. wrong comparison

(E) Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished. wrong comparison

Hence option A
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 286
Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2018, 04:36
There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

(A) There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

(B) There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.

(C) There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.

(D) Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.

(E) Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.


Dear mikemcgarry, MagooshExpert Carolyn, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja,
I have some different views need your confirmation.

#1, The subject of answer choice B and E
both B and E have same construction " there are no legal size limits ... " , IMO, "there" is not the real subject, but "no legal size limits" is the real subject. Right?

#2, (E) Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished
based on above , i think the comprision in E is:
catching cod and haddock , which is a gerund , VS leagal size limits, rather than catching cod and haddock VS there

Anyone think there is a redundancy in E? Both "comtribute to "and "because" imply a cause.

(B) There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.
#3, comparison in B
Honestly, I think the comparison is minkfish and cod or haddock, -- logical, I view it omits "legal limits on the size of",


I am not sure what's my fault,

Genuienly need your clarification

Have a nice day
>_~
Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 144
Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2018, 22:44
zoezhuyan wrote:
There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

(A) There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

(B) There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.

(C) There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing.

(D) Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.

(E) Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.


Dear mikemcgarry, MagooshExpert Carolyn, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja,
I have some different views need your confirmation.

#1, The subject of answer choice B and E
both B and E have same construction " there are no legal size limits ... " , IMO, "there" is not the real subject, but "no legal size limits" is the real subject. Right?

#2, (E) Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished
based on above , i think the comprision in E is:
catching cod and haddock , which is a gerund , VS leagal size limits, rather than catching cod and haddock VS there

Anyone think there is a redundancy in E? Both "comtribute to "and "because" imply a cause.

(B) There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.
#3, comparison in B
Honestly, I think the comparison is minkfish and cod or haddock, -- logical, I view it omits "legal limits on the size of",


I am not sure what's my fault,

Genuienly need your clarification

Have a nice day
>_~


Hi zoezhuyan

Glad to help :-)

I think it's easier to see the parallel in E if we rearrange this part of the sentence (which is perfectly fine to do):

There are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, unlike catching cod and haddock

With this construction, it's clear that the comparison is intended to be between "catching monkfish" and "catching cod and haddock". However, this comparison is not correctly in parallel. If we look at the nouns that are in parallel, then we see:

There are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, unlike catching cod and haddock

So the comparison (incorrectly, of course), is really between "no legal size limits" and "catching cod and haddock", as you said :-)

You are right that "contribute to" and "because" in E both imply a cause, and there's definitely a slight redundancy. The sentence is intending to say that the limits contribute to the population decrease, and that happens because they are being overfished.

For (B), as with (E), to see the comparison we need to look at the overall structure. The structure is:

There are X, unlike Y

So X is being compared with Y. With answer choice (E), that was "no legal size limits" and "catching cod and haddock". Here, that is now "no legal limits" and "cod and haddock", which still doesn't make sense. In order for the comparison to be between "monkfish" and "cod and haddock", the structure would need to be parallel, like:

There are no legal limits on the size of X, in contrast to the limits on the size of Y

This is a much more awkward construction than in the correct answer A, but it shows how we would need the structure to be parallel in order to be comparing the correct things. For more about this, see these articles:


I hope that helps! :-)
-Carolyn
_________________

Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 22 Feb 2014
Posts: 7
Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Feb 2018, 22:50
It's A.

There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

(A) There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.- Correctly explaining a circumstance. Correct answer

(B) There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished.- Phrase, unlike noun (Incorrect)

(C) There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing. legal limit on X, but not for Y (Incorrect)

(D) Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished.- Comparison error

(E) Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished.- Comparison error
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 286
Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Feb 2018, 04:28
MagooshExpert wrote:
Hi zoezhuyan

There are no legal limits on the size of X, in contrast to the limits on the size of Y

-Carolyn


MagooshExpert

Hi Carolyn,
There are no legal limits on the size of X, UNLIKE the limits on the size of Y

Is it correct?

Please confirm

Have a nice day

>_~
Expert Post
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 144
Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Feb 2018, 17:38
zoezhuyan wrote:
MagooshExpert wrote:
Hi zoezhuyan

There are no legal limits on the size of X, in contrast to the limits on the size of Y

-Carolyn


MagooshExpert

Hi Carolyn,
There are no legal limits on the size of X, UNLIKE the limits on the size of Y

Is it correct?

Please confirm

Have a nice day

>_~


Hi zoezhuyan,

This isn't quite correct, because we aren't saying that the limits themselves are unlike the other limits -- we are saying that the "existence" of the limits on X is unlike the "existence" of the limits on Y. The word "unlike" here is describing the whole situation; the fact that there are limits on X, but no limits on Y. If we directly say:

There are no limits on X, UNLIKE the limits on Y

Then we are directly comparing the "limits on X" to the "limits on Y". Normally, this kind of comparison makes sense, but in this case it does not. We aren't saying that the limits are different -- we are saying that there are NO limits on Y. So just using "unlike" doesn't work here; we need to use a different comparison structure.

Hope that helps! :-)
-Carolyn
_________________

Magoosh Test Prep

Image

Image

Re: There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si   [#permalink] 27 Feb 2018, 17:38

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 37 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the si

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

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


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®.