Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
07 Oct 2018, 10:29
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
30% (02:22) correct
70%
(02:00)
wrong
based on 1267
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Supreme Court decision went a long way toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when it was to be used.
A. toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when it was
B. toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allow patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and to explain how and when it was
C. towards the establishment of the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when it was
D. toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explained how and when they were
E. towards establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, allowing patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when they were
A. toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when it was
B. toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allow patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and to explain how and when it was
C. towards the establishment of the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when it was
D. toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explained how and when they were
E. towards establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, allowing patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when they were
07 Oct 2018, 22:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
The 1950 Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. Supreme Court decision went a long way toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when it was to be used.
A. toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when it was (Correct)
B. toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allow patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and to explain how and when it was (Both items should be in parallel)
C. towards the establishment of the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when it was (Same as B)
D. toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explained how and when they were (Same as B)
E. towards establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, allowing patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when they were (Usage of they is ambiguous)
A. toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when it was (Correct)
B. toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allow patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and to explain how and when it was (Both items should be in parallel)
C. towards the establishment of the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when it was (Same as B)
D. toward establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, which allows patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explained how and when they were (Same as B)
E. towards establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, allowing patent law to accommodate reason outside of its exact jurisdiction, and explaining how and when they were (Usage of they is ambiguous)
General Discussion
07 Oct 2018, 12:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
Establishing and explaining should be parallel. This eliminates options b, c and d. The verb at the end of the of the underlined part should be singular since doctrine is singular.
Posted from my mobile device
Posted from my mobile device
