It is currently 19 Nov 2017, 19:33

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# This one has alreadhy been discussed here:

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

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1481

Kudos [?]: 1500 [0], given: 2

Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
This one has alreadhy been discussed here: [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2010, 10:56
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

73% (00:53) correct 27% (01:00) wrong based on 44 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

This one has alreadhy been discussed here: grounds-sc-70795.html
OA is D.
However, "it" can refer to both "a judge" or "the ban" and is therefore ambigous.
Could anybody clarify?
Many thanks in advance,

Nine months after the county banned jet skis and other water bikes
from the tranquil waters of Puget Sound, a judge overturned the ban on the
grounds of violating state laws for allowing the use of personal watercraft
on common waterways
A. of violating state laws for allowing
B. of their violating state laws to allow
C. that it violates state laws that allowed
D. that it violated state laws allowing
E. that state laws were being violated allowing
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 1500 [0], given: 2

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 954

Kudos [?]: 918 [0], given: 36

Location: Singapore
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Chicago Booth - Class of 2015
Re: violating state [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2010, 11:27
D is correct.

"it" is not ambiguous in D. It cannot be used to refer to human being (the judge) - unless its a baby.

Kudos [?]: 918 [0], given: 36

VP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1481

Kudos [?]: 1500 [0], given: 2

Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Re: violating state [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2010, 12:09
nusmavrik wrote:
D is correct.

"it" is not ambiguous in D. It cannot be used to refer to human being (the judge) - unless its a baby.

ah ok! thanks.

By the way, you can use "it" to refer to a baby??
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 1500 [0], given: 2

Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 954

Kudos [?]: 918 [0], given: 36

Location: Singapore
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: Chicago Booth - Class of 2015
Re: violating state [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2010, 22:48
That depends on the context - since you don't know whether baby is "he" or "she" you can use "it". Lets say you know the baby's name John or Sheena then its wrong to use "it" to refer to baby.

Sheena is so cute. It is a very cute child. -----> wrong. you have to use the personal pronoun "she"
She is a very cute child.

noboru wrote:
nusmavrik wrote:
D is correct.

"it" is not ambiguous in D. It cannot be used to refer to human being (the judge) - unless its a baby.

ah ok! thanks.

By the way, you can use "it" to refer to a baby??

Kudos [?]: 918 [0], given: 36

Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2010
Posts: 177

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 13

Re: violating state [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2010, 05:15
D........clearly .........."it" refers to a thing so no ambiguity as explained above

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 13

Manager
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 185

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 7

Re: violating state [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2010, 08:53
I had eliminated C and D initially considering "it" to be ambiguous.
However, nusmarvik reasoning helped me here..

Thanks man..

D is the answer in this case..
_________________

Gotta hit the 700 score this time... 3rd time lucky !
Give me some kudos... Like you, even I need them badly

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 7

VP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1481

Kudos [?]: 1500 [0], given: 2

Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Re: violating state [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2010, 09:27
so the idiom is on the grounds that? Is there any other possible construction? For example, on the grounds of?
Thanks
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 1500 [0], given: 2

Manager
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 185

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 7

Re: violating state [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2010, 12:07
"grounds for" is the correct usage.. but in this case, there is no "grounds for" choice..
tell me how would you apply the idiom rule here !
_________________

Gotta hit the 700 score this time... 3rd time lucky !
Give me some kudos... Like you, even I need them badly

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 7

Manager
Joined: 07 Apr 2009
Posts: 142

Kudos [?]: 123 [0], given: 5

Re: violating state [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2010, 13:10
that is necessary here, so CDE, E uses being so out, CD , Now state laws that allowed makes different sense.
Allowing is better here. D

Kudos [?]: 123 [0], given: 5

Manager
Joined: 03 May 2015
Posts: 106

Kudos [?]: 15 [1], given: 48

Re: This one has alreadhy been discussed here: [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2015, 17:36
1
KUDOS
Request you not to write your queries/answers/opinions in question window. It prevents ppl from analysing the question. The whole purpose of GMAT Club forum goes wasted by doing so.

Kudos [?]: 15 [1], given: 48

Director
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 690

Kudos [?]: 228 [0], given: 855

Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, International Business
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: This one has alreadhy been discussed here: [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2017, 05:20
"Ground of" is a wrong idiom.

"of violating" and "for allowing" are wordy and awkward phrases. Keeping both in mind we can eliminate options A and B.

The pronoun "their" in option B is ambiguous because there's no logical plural noun for it to refer to, but "it" can logically refer to "the ban." The pronoun "it" isn't ambiguous here in option C and D; it refers to "the ban" unambiguously.

In C, “violates” is in the wrong tense. The judge “overturned the ban” (in the past). It is not possible that the ban “violates state laws” (in the present). Keep all the verbs in the same tense unless a change in tense is required. Eliminate C.

The tenses in D are correct. At the time the judge “overturned” the ban (in the past), the ban “violated”(also in the past) state laws allowing the use of personal watercraft on common waterways. The present participle “allowing” indicates an action contemporaneous with “violated”; the two actions took place at the same time.

E is indeed wordy and distorts the meaning. C has a tense error ("violates"), so D is the only answer choice without a grammar error.
The correct answer is D.
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Kudos [?]: 228 [0], given: 855

Re: This one has alreadhy been discussed here:   [#permalink] 02 Sep 2017, 05:20
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# This one has alreadhy been discussed here:

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

 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®.