Large corporations are prevented from conspiracy on restraining trade

Question

Project SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC1) 
 For SC butler Questions  Click Here

Large corporations are prevented from conspiracy on restraining trade by antitrust laws that were passed at the turn of the century, but they  needed the further support of Supreme Court decisions to be wholly effective.

A) Large corporations are prevented from conspiracy on restraining trade by antitrust laws that were passed at the turn of the century, but they

B) Large corporations, prevented from conspiring to restrain trade by antitrust laws passed at the turn of the century, but the laws

C) Conspiracy to restrain trade by large corporations was prevented by antitrust laws passed at the turn of the century, but they have

D) Antitrust laws which were passed at the turn of the century, prevented large corporations from conspiring on restraining trade, but such laws have

E) Antitrust laws were passed at the turn of the century to prevent large corporations from conspiring to restrain trade, but such laws have

generis · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Project SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC1)

For SC butler Questions Click Here

THE PROMPT

Quote:

Large corporations are prevented from conspiracy on restraining trade by antitrust laws that were passed at the turn of the century, but they needed the further support of Supreme Court decisions to be wholly effective.

• pronoun ambiguity?
→ True pronoun ambiguity is fairly rare on the GMAT.
True pronoun ambiguity exists when more than one noun can logically be the antecedent of the pronoun.
(And, inversely, if only one noun is the logical antecedent of a pronoun, true pronoun ambiguity does not exist.)
That situation is not the case in this question.
They refers to laws.
What else would require the help of the Supreme Court "to be wholly effective"? The corporations that try to conspire? I think not.

That said, at times, even without true pronoun ambiguity, it is better to avoid using the pronoun.
The word "they" is jarring, in part because this "they" received help from the Supreme Court.
"They" sounds like people or perhaps corporations.
Unless we happen to have earned J.D.s, we don't think of laws as needing help.

Even I (among other things, a possessor of a J.D.) stumbled over "they" on first read.

As I skimmed the options, I noticed that options D and E repeat the noun, using the phrase "such laws."
When you see GMAC repeat a noun, especially with a determiner ("such") to accentuate the previously referenced noun (laws), if no errors exist, be hesitant to eliminate that option.
GMAC SC writers typically repeat nouns because pronouns are, if not ambiguous, at least muddling.

Bottom line: at times, even if formal pronoun ambiguity does not exist, it is better to avoid pronouns such as they and to repeat the noun instead.

• Idiom error
→ conspiracy on restraining trade is not the correct idiom.
→ conspiring to restrain trade is correct.
Do not memorize this idiom. In the last few years, only two or three questions were decisively answered by idiom accuracy.

• Main idea?
What's the main subject? Antitrust laws.
What happened? The antitrust laws were passed at the turn of the [nineteenth] century.
Why? The laws were passed to prevent corporations from conspiring to restrain trade.
What else happened? Supreme Court decisions imbued the antitrust laws with extra force, enough force to make the laws "wholly effective."

• Does the verb matter? No.
We do not know whether the antitrust laws became wholly effective a long time ago, in which case the simple past needed would be correct, or whether the antitrust laws just recently became wholly effective, in which case, the present perfect have needed would be correct.

Quote:

A) Large corporations are prevented from conspiracy on restraining trade by antitrust laws that were passed at the turn of the century, but they

• idiom error
→ correct: conspiring to restrain trade

• diction and style: the pronoun "they" is logical but not obvious in this context, and thus jarring.
→ Why "jarring"? Because we expect the targets of Supreme Court assistance to be people, so the antecedent of they isn't easily understood without work.
We stutter as we read.
By contrast, if we are told that Supreme Court support was needed so that such laws would eventually become fully effective, the sentence doesn't stutter. This area is a matter of diction and style.
You can compare options. Compare two at a time. Ask which is better and which is worse.

• Idiom error
Wrong: Conspiracy on restraining trade
Correct: Conspiring to restrain trade
The idiom error is clear but rare.
If you want to be conservative, hold onto this option and look for a better one. Otherwise . . .
ELIMINATE A

Quote:

B) Large corporations, prevented from conspiring to restrain trade by antitrust laws passed at the turn of the century, [VERB? to match with large corporations?] but the laws

• The case of the missing verb
The subject large corporations does not have a matching verb, in which case we do not have a real sentence (a full clause) and we do have a fragment.
ELIMINATE B

Quote:

C) Conspiracy to restrain trade by large corporations was prevented by antitrust laws passed at the turn of the century, but they have [needed]

• they creates the same issues as those outlined in option A
I am still not a fan of this "they" business. Diction and style are hard calls. If we find a crisper or clearer option, we will examine it.
KEEP, but look for a better answer

Quote:

D) Antitrust laws which were passed at the turn of the century, prevented large corporations from conspiring on restraining trade, but such laws have

• which/that
→ Which and that are not interchangeable in formal U.S. English. (In British English, the two are interchangeable.)
Which introduces non-essential information and is set off by commas.
That introduces essential information and is not set off by commas.

A few experts believe that the which/that distinction is not enough to eliminate an answer.
I think the distinction is enough to put an option on the 95% eliminated list.
In only two official SC questions, which is used where that should be used—but this nonstandard construction is in the nonunderlined portion of the prompt.
I have never seen a single correct answer in which the which/that distinction was abandoned. Not one.
If you know of such a question, by all means, do bring it to my attention.

This distinction is so ingrained from years' of writing and editing that I cringe when I see them used interchangeably, so perhaps I am too steeped in formal traditions.
Nonetheless, I counsel you to be very suspicious of any sentence that obliterates the distinction and to put it at the top of your chopping list.

• conspiring on restraining trade is not the correct idiom.
ELIMINATE D (or keep, and hope that E is a better option)

So far, none of these sentences seem terribly satisfying.
Can we rank A, C, and D? Probably not.
Yes, a really awkward idiom error is enough to disqualify options A and D, but let's suppose that we do not know this fact.

Quote:

E) Antitrust laws were passed at the turn of the century to prevent large corporations from conspiring to restrain trade, but such laws have

• Bingo. This option fixes all the issues we found in options A, C, and D.

• The subject of the sentence, antitrust laws, is highlighted by:
1) its being mentioned first, and
2) its being repeated with the word "such," as in "such laws."
We want the subject of the sentence to stand out. It does so in this option.

• the correct idiom (conspiring to restrain trade) is used

• the not-ambiguous-but-jarring pronoun "they" is sensibly replaced with the important and repeated noun laws.

• Comparison?
→ A and C vs. E?
Dump options A and C for their use of they rather than such laws as we see in option E. The latter is clearer and cleaner.
→ Between D and E? No contest.
Which/that is not an issue in E, and the idiom both sounds and is better.

Option E wins.
Choice E fixes the original pronoun haziness and idiom errors by replacing the pronoun they with the clear phrase such laws and by using the correct form of the idiom, conspiring to.

NOTES

• Meaning and style? Option E trumps A, though that fact may not be immediately obvious.

PyjamaScientist , you are correct. Option A does not suffer from true pronoun ambiguity. Well done!
Idioms are rarely dispositive on the GMAT (look for any other error), so . . . can we find a reason that option E is preferable to A?

Yes. Option (E) is a better written sentence.
The main subject (antitrust laws) is both out front and repeated.
The use of the determiner phrase "such laws" reiterates the subject so that it is front and center as the clear recipient of the actions by the Supreme Court.

In formal English, this structure—determiner + noun (such + laws)—is a powerful tool that produces effective prose.

I recommend that everyone Google:
(1) "such laws" New York Times
and
(2) "such laws" Washington Post
and
(3) "such laws" The Atlantic

You won't be able to visit each paper more than 4 times in a month, so read the examples in the abstracts.
All of you will notice that this kind of phrasing is common.

• Does option A determine original or intended meaning? NO.

Gio96 , you asked a very common question about whether option E were wrong because it seemed to depart from what you saw as the meaning as expressed in option A.
I am glad that you asked and hope that my answer, backed up by three other experts with decades' of experience, will hellp.

Option A does not determine intended meaning.
Many of you are taught otherwise.
I would know about the latter. I keep seeing this not-rule.

If need be, use all five options to determine intended meaning.

Option A does not determine intended meaning.
In fact, I tutor aspirants to keep reading options until intended meaning becomes clear.

That is, if you do not have a fairly firm grasp on what the sentence is trying to say one second after you finish reading the prompt (and obviously, option A in it), do not get stuck. Go immediately to option B, or use "vertical scanning" to find splits.

You don't have time to get stuck and certainly not to do so when you could figure out the meaning with help from other options.
Almost all of you need to save time on SC for one of the other two verbal sections.
Keep reading the options until intended meaning comes into better focus.

One last time: Option A does not determine intended meaning.
I study OGs.
I have concluded that this option A business stems in part from a brief mention by exactly one not-correct OE writer one time more than a decade ago and in part from the mere fact that option A happens to sit in the nest of the sentence from which we typically do extract intended meaning: the non-underlined portion of the prompt.

The three experts below collectively possess more than 40 years' of experience teaching the GMAT.
They, too, say that there is nothing special about option A.
GMATNinja , HERE, Dmitry Farber, here, and Ron Purewal, HERE.

See this post, here for a few examples of official sentences in which option A could not possibly have determined the intended meaning of the sentence.

So including those three, you have four experts who say that option A is not dispositive and who have no reason to lead you astray.
I could link you many more such experts.

COMMENTS

Gio96 , welcome to SC Butler. I am glad to have aspirants come forward and post in SC Butler.

If you can explain something, you have probably or nearly mastered it; I think that all aspirants should aim to write at least 10 SC posts—all aspirants have an open invitation to post on Butler.
Don't worry if "your" answer is already there.
Just write in your own words.
Just as people write differently, people read and understand differently.

Shikhar22 , good to "see" you again.

Analysis ranges from good to excellent.
Keep up the good work.

Analysis ranges from good to excellent. Keep up the good work.

PyjamaScientist · Answer

I think it's a clear split between (A) and (E).

Some might say that "they" in (A) is ambiguous so it's incorrect and pick (E). But, the only logical referent of "they" in the sentence is "anti trust laws".

The meaning accrued by (A) and (E) is different. And, "have needed" in (E) is super awkward,  who writes like that ?

So, if I pick meaning over anything else, (A) looks like the best choice to me. But, again OA can very well be (E) for it presumably "corrects" the "pronoun ambiguity" in (A). Which in my opinion is not an ambiguity.  "They" needed the support to be fully effective. , here if we replace "they" by "corporations", the meaning comes out to be weird,  "Large corporations" needed the support to be fully effective? , nah!

Let's wait for the OA.

Shikhar22 · Answer

Think E is correct because a presence of present-perfect tense is needed to explain the ongoing action of support from the court to the laws since the turn of the century. E does sound awkward but much more technically sound imo

Posted from my mobile device

zhanbo · Answer

My answer is  (E) . It took me 02:04.

(A) "they" can refer to "large corporations" or "antitrust laws". While pronoun ambiguity may not be a fatal error, the confusion here is real, especially when "they" and "large corporations" both serve as the subject of their respective clause. 
Also, "restraining trade by antitrust laws" can mean that large companies restrained trade by the means of antitrust laws", an incorrect interpretation that is actually plausible.
As for the "needed" vs. "have needed" split, I believe either is ok. While "needed" and "have needed" differ in their meanings, we are not here to guess what the author meant to say.

(B) Not a sentence. Before "but", there should be an independent clause. We only see a noun.

(C) "they" can refer to "large corporations" or "antitrust laws". 
This version also suggests that such conspiracy was already prevented by antitrust laws. Interestingly enough, we are not under such impression after reading other options.

(D) In GMAT, there should be a comma before "which", a strict rule that is a blessing for test takers. 
Change "which" to "that", and also remove the comma before "prevented".

(E) The best of five. 
"have needed" means that, after the antitrust laws were passed at the turn of the century, the laws were challenged but ultimately bolstered by favorable Supreme Court decisions. The further support of Supreme Court has taken place.

winterschool · Answer

Large corporations are prevented from conspiracy on restraining trade by antitrust laws that were passed at the turn of the century, but they needed the further support of Supreme Court decisions to be wholly effective.

A) Large corporations are prevented from conspiracy on restraining trade  by antitrust laws that were  passed at the turn of the century, but  they   Incorrect

they refers to whose - Large corporations or laws; first part of the sentence is in passive form; also has redundancy issue

B)  Large corporations,  prevented from conspiring to restrain trade by antitrust laws passed at the turn of the century, but the laws  Incorrect

incomplete sentence - Large corporations?

C) Conspiracy to restrain trade by large corporations was prevented  by antitrust laws passed at the turn of the century, but they  have  Incorrect

passive form; they refers to whose - Large corporations or laws

D)  Antitrust laws  which were passed at the turn of the century, prevented large corporations from conspiring on restraining trade, but such laws have  Incorrect

incomplete sentence - Antitrust laws?

E)  Antitrust laws were passed at the turn of the century to prevent large corporations from conspiring to restrain trade, but such laws have   Correct

Gio96 · Answer

Hi Expert, I eliminated choice E on the ground the it change the intended meaning presented by the original sentence.

"Antitrust laws were passed at the turn of the century  to  prevent large corporations from..." 
It seems that the purpose for these laws was to prevent large corporations from conspiring, but what if the main purpose was another one?

Could you please clarify?
Regards.

zhanbo · Answer

I am not sure whether (E) materially changes the meaning as conveyed by (A), but please rid yourself of the myth that option (A) somehow describes the  intended meaning  of the author.

We do not know the intended meaning of the author, though we trust that correct sentence is meaningful, sensible, and clear.

Each option should be evaluated independently without any deference to the supposed meaning of (A).  At the same time, a typical GMAT SC question only aims to convey just one meaning but with different sentence constructions. One is the best, and (A) may mess up the meaning the most.

milanrajb · Answer

Was confused between A and E.

At last choose E as it seems that main subject of the sentence is about antitrust laws.

Hence, chose E

generis · Answer

The official explanation is  here .

szcz · Answer

I understand that we can eliminate the wrong options on the basis of idioms and pronoun ambiguity. But is there a meaning error as well? All options but the correct option mention that anti trust laws prevented large corporations from conspiring. I believe that this is incorrect since if the laws did indeed prevent, we would not need further support from the Supreme court. I was able to arrive at the correct answer with this methodology. I would like to know if this thinking is correct?

Kindly help. KarishmaB GMATNinja IanStewart generis

Kindly help.  KarishmaB   GMATNinja   IanStewart   generis

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Hello  szcz ,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, there is no difference of meaning at play here.

There is no logical contradiction between an entity taking an action, but requiring further support in the same.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

IanStewart · Answer

Yes, you're right. If we ignore the serious grammatical issues in answers A through D, all of them roughly say that companies were prevented from conspiring, but Supreme Court decisions were needed to make the laws "wholly effective". In other words, Supreme Court decisions were needed so the laws could effectively achieve their other antitrust objectives (besides preventing conspiracy), whatever those were. But answers A through D are so grammatically disastrous here that I wouldn't personally focus much on subtle differences in meaning among the choices.

Large corporations are prevented from conspiracy on restraining trade

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

Large corporations are prevented from conspiracy on restraining trade

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards