GMAT Changed on April 16th - Read about the latest changes here

 It is currently 24 Apr 2018, 10:56

### 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

# Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the 80-20 rule

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 03 Mar 2013
Posts: 47
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 3
WE: Information Technology (Telecommunications)
Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the 80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2013, 04:44
18
KUDOS
66
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

45% (01:26) correct 55% (01:24) wrong based on 3384 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.

A) Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.

B) Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” requiring that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.

C) Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.

D) Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.

E) Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and to have no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4255
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the 80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2013, 06:33
10
KUDOS
Expert's post
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
All I know is that A cannot be the choice, since A is using like to state examples. The text is not comparing ground floor rents with anything. It is an example of income from other sources. This is a fatal error.

Among others:

B Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants. --- This is a fragment without a finite verb for the main clause

C Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.—This is a classic subjunctive mood clause. Looks perfect to me; the three essentials are present: The command word ‘required’ is there; that is there; and the verb of the sub-clause is base form (receive, have no more

D. Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and to have no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants. --- This is another version of C, wherein the infinitives are used instead of base verbs; again perfectly befitting, IMO.

E; Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and to have no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.—as wrong as A for using like for examples.

Between C and D, it is difficult to make out, unless there is a reason for preferring one over the other. I personally prefer C because of the sunbjuntiveness of the mood
_________________

Can you solve at least some SC questions without delving into the initial statement?

Narendran 98845 44509

Manager
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 154
Location: Poland
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the 80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2013, 08:26
I agree with dagh.
daagh wrote:
C Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.—This is a classic subjunctive mood clause. Looks perfect to me; the three essentials are present: The command word ‘required’ is there; that is there; and the verb of the sub-clause is base form (receive, have no more

I know the form of infinitive without "to" as "bare", not "base" infinitive. Are these names interchangeable?

thelosthippie wrote:
D) Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.

IMO this one is also correct: "require" works as well with Command Subjunctive (as in C) as with "to infinitive". Manhattan SC mentions that on page 114. Also, the "to" before have in the second clause can be legally omitted.

As to refuting A as the correct answer I fully agree with daagh.

I would also choose C with the Command Subjunctive mood, because the passage describes a tax regulation, so formal English is better suited here and Command Subjunctive is an instrument in formal language.
_________________

If I answered your question with this post, use the motivating power of kudos!

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4255
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the 80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2013, 18:51
@HumptyDumpty:
I only referred to as base verb that is the first form of any verb structure such as receive, received, received; jump. jumped, jumped etc., and not any bare infinitive. How can we exchange a verb with an infinitive, bare or no bare
_________________

Can you solve at least some SC questions without delving into the initial statement?

Narendran 98845 44509

Manager
Status: Looking to improve
Joined: 15 Jan 2013
Posts: 167
GMAT 1: 530 Q43 V20
GMAT 2: 560 Q42 V25
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the 80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2013, 19:16

The error is like used for examples instead of such as. The issue with C is required (past tense) is combined with infinitive - to receive (which typically shows intent).

I think required that goes with receive and require goes with to receive
_________________

KUDOS is a way to say Thank You

Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1086
Location: United States
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the 80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2013, 01:00
3
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
nt2010 wrote:

The error is like used for examples instead of such as. The issue with C is required (past tense) is combined with infinitive - to receive (which typically shows intent).

Hi nt2010.
I'm on the same boat, IMO D is better than A because A use "like" to mention examples.

Quote:
I think required that goes with receive and require goes with to receive

Not necessarily, past tense or present tense doesn't matter. Correct idioms are:
require X to do Y
require that X do Y (without to)

C is wrong because:.........required X.....to receive.............and have.........
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Retired Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1086
Location: United States
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the 80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2013, 01:06
daagh wrote:
All I know is that A cannot be the choice, since A is using like to state examples. The text is not comparing ground floor rents with anything. It is an example of income from other sources. This is a fatal error.

Among others:

B Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants. --- This is a fragment without a finite verb for the main clause

C Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.—This is a classic subjunctive mood clause. Looks perfect to me; the three essentials are present: The command word ‘required’ is there; that is there; and the verb of the sub-clause is base form (receive, have no more

D. Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and to have no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants. --- This is another version of C, wherein the infinitives are used instead of base verbs; again perfectly befitting, IMO.

E; Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and to have no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.—as wrong as A for using like for examples.

Between C and D, it is difficult to make out, unless there is a reason for preferring one over the other. I personally prefer C because of the sunbjuntiveness of the mood

Hi daagh.
I think you switched the order of C and D? As you explained, D should be correct? Please confirm. Thanks
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Manager
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 154
Location: Poland
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the 80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2013, 04:43
1
KUDOS
pqhai wrote:
C is wrong because:.........required X.....to receive.............and have.........

This form is correct, it is NOT an error. The second "to" is usually omitted by two infinitives, just as any other repetition in parallel structures. E.g.:

The reporter wants to go and (to) interview the celebrity in person.
Tom is doing his homework and (is) listening to music.

Compare: GMAT Club Grammar Book, p. 75.

nt2010 wrote:

(...)The issue with C is required (past tense) is combined with infinitive - to receive (which typically shows intent).

I think required that goes with receive and require goes with to receive

No such error exists in C.

First, the "required" is not a parallel to the "receive". After "required to" two verbs are used in a correct parallel structure: receive (at least...) and have (no more...). Moreover, the "required" in the Simple Past tense is correct here, as there is "Until 2010" at the beginning of the sentence.
[Reveal] Spoiler: On "until"
"Until" means "up to (the point in time or the event mentioned)", therefore it calls for using relative tense. Proper use of "Until":
Until you find the key, we shall/will not be able to get in.
I am not coming until I am asked.
I did not know until you told me.

Second, "required that" implements a Command Subjunctive, which is a mood in English language and will always go with bare infinitive form. Furthermore, as you wrote: "require goes with to receive" - this is misunderstood. The preposition "to" belongs not to the "receive" here, but to the "require". The idiomatic form is Require sb to do sh, just as pqhai wrote:
pqhai wrote:
require X to do Y
require that X do Y (without to)

I can only add that the second structure is the Command Subjunctive mood (CSM).

[Reveal] Spoiler: On CSM
The only correct structure of the Command Subjunctive mood is as presented in the sentence, i.e.: bossy verb + that + bare infinitive. E.g.: We demand that he be here.; The assembly proposed that the schoolboard disband.; The chairman suggested that the CEO redeploy.

Hence, both C and D are grammatically and logically correct.
_________________

If I answered your question with this post, use the motivating power of kudos!

Manager
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 154
Location: Poland
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the 80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2013, 05:11
19
KUDOS
10
This post was
BOOKMARKED
On the other hand!:

I found some rationale of A:

Most of us rejected A because the "like" is used to introduce an example.
Well, it is not.
The "like" introduces a comparison here and is thus used correctly.

Quote:
A) Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.

The ground floor rent IS NOT one of income sources for the condominum associations (CAs), but it IS one of income sources for restaurants. So, the "other sources" for CAs are compared to the other sources for restaurants (such as ground-floor rent), and the "ground-floor rent" is not an income source for CAs, thus it is not an example of "other sources" for CAs.

This is the case with the "like".

Further, "required that" uses correct Command Subjunctive. As to the previous posts, the "have" in the second clause can be omitted without any damage to the sentence. It is redundant. The comma before ", and" is also correctly placed, as a comma between two long parallel clauses should be (also before the coordinating conjunction and!).

A is the best answer choice, though hellishly convoluted. Perhaps we all fell victims to the inflexible way of thinking, putting an obtuse grammar rule way above... thinking .
_________________

If I answered your question with this post, use the motivating power of kudos!

Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3413
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the 80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Apr 2013, 06:01
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Me too in a first instance picked C.

but as usual is important to revise a question in particular whan you pick it wrong and is difficult such this question.

So: if we look at the sentence ONLY from the meaning standing point in B C D and E (I do not see anything else: no like no other grammar rule) have or to have it's like an huge black hole.

It doesn't hold anywater. Completely syupid to think (for me of course) to solely think to the other answer choices......

The meaning guys..........is the key in such SC.

regards
_________________
Intern
Joined: 03 Dec 2011
Posts: 31
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the 80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2013, 08:50
2
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Hey guys,

My first post here. I'm more of a passive user

From what I understand, this question makes use of the "bossy verbs" - referring to words such as "required", "proposed", "demanded".
Bossy verbs are, in most cases, followed by "that" (commanded that, required that etc).
So, vertical scanning leaves us with options A, B and D.
B and D are eliminated because of such as (like is preferred because there is a direct comparison).
_________________

Kudos if the post helped!

The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained by sudden flight, but they, while their companions slept, were toiling upward in the night. -H.W. Longfellow

Intern
Joined: 23 Jul 2013
Posts: 23
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the 80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2013, 09:06
3
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
thelosthippie wrote:
Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.

Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.

Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” requiring that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.

Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.

Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.

Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and to have no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.

Like is used correctly. "Ground-floor rent for restaurants" is not an example of other sources. It's being compared to condominium rent. Like=similar to. Income from their tenant-shareholders is similar to ground-floor rent for restaurants. The only answer choices left are A & E. E seems wordy & "to have no more" sounds a bit off to me

Please give me kudos if my post has helped you
Manager
Status: need GMAT 700+
Joined: 02 Apr 2013
Posts: 54
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT Date: 10-04-2013
GPA: 3.5
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2013, 04:42
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
benyahalom wrote:
hey,
i found this question on Veritas Prep,

Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.

A.Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.
B.Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” requiring that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.
C.Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.
D.Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.
E.Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and to have no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.

can anyone explain how is it possible to use like in order to list examples, i tought that it must be "Such as"?
Thanks :D

In option A..."Like" is used to compare two things("income from other sources" with "ground-floor rent") not to list examples.
Current Student
Joined: 02 Apr 2013
Posts: 63
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GPA: 3
WE: Science (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2013, 23:57
Can anyone help explain the difference between " required that condominium associations receive at least 80 ," and "required condominium associations receive at least 80 ?"

Thanks
Manager
Status: Persevering
Joined: 15 May 2013
Posts: 205
Location: India
GMAT Date: 08-02-2013
GPA: 3.7
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Aug 2013, 00:02
1
KUDOS
animanga008 wrote:
Can anyone help explain the difference between " required that condominium associations receive at least 80 ," and "required condominium associations receive at least 80 ?"

Thanks

Second one is just wrong. required takes either that or to form. So required that or required condominium associations to would be correct.
_________________

--It's one thing to get defeated, but another to accept it.

Manager
Joined: 25 Mar 2013
Posts: 58
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2013, 00:57
1
KUDOS
mohit879 wrote:

In option A..."Like" is used to compare two things("income from other sources" with "ground-floor rent") not to list examples.

How do we know that like is being used to compare and not to list examples?
My impression was that restaurant is an example of the source
Manager
Status: need GMAT 700+
Joined: 02 Apr 2013
Posts: 54
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT Date: 10-04-2013
GPA: 3.5
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2013, 01:10
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
happyinlove505 wrote:
mohit879 wrote:

In option A..."Like" is used to compare two things("income from other sources" with "ground-floor rent") not to list examples.

How do we know that like is being used to compare and not to list examples?
My impression was that restaurant is an example of the source

The ground floor rent IS NOT one of income sources for the condominum associations (CAs), but it IS one of income sources for restaurants. So, the "other sources" for CAs are compared to the other sources for restaurants (such as ground-floor rent), and the "ground-floor rent" is not an income source for CAs, thus it is not an example of "other sources" for CAs.

This is the case with the "like".

Further, "required that" uses correct Command Subjunctive. As to the previous posts, the "have" in the second clause can be omitted without any damage to the sentence. It is redundant. The comma before ", and" is also correctly placed, as a comma between two long parallel clauses should be (also before the coordinating conjunction and!).

A is the best answer choice
Director
Status: 1,750 Q's attempted and counting
Affiliations: University of Florida
Joined: 09 Jul 2013
Posts: 509
Location: United States (FL)
Schools: UFL (A)
GMAT 1: 600 Q45 V29
GMAT 2: 590 Q35 V35
GMAT 3: 570 Q42 V28
GMAT 4: 610 Q44 V30
GPA: 3.45
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Nov 2013, 19:38
3
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Here is the official explanation from Veritas.

Answer is (A). The primary difficulty in this question refers to a false decision point between “such as” and “like”. Generally speaking, you use “such as” when what follows is an example of what precedes it and you use “like” when you are making a comparison. However, grammar experts do not agree on this usage and many top editors (including most at the New York Times) permit the usage of like in examples like “colors like pink and red.” Be careful about applying rules that you think are strict when they really are not: in math 2 + 2 is always 4 but in grammar there are few absolutes. Therefore, at the end both “like” and “such as” are acceptable so you must find other decision points.

In (B) there is no active verb as “requiring” is just a participle. In (C), (D), and (E) “have no more…” is incorrect: you do not “have 20% of your income from other sources” you “receive 20% of your income from other sources”. Only (A) gets the predication correct: “require that associations receive at least 80% from this…, and no more than 20% from other sources” The comma confuses some students but it is there to make it clear that the first part ends after “from shareholders.” The sentence is really “receive at least 80% from this and no more than 20% from this…”.
Intern
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Posts: 36
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Mar 2014, 11:19
1
KUDOS
I almost fell into the trap of "like" and "such as" but then found atleast one error in each of those answer choices except A. "when I looked at "have no more", it made me suspicious since it didnt make sense and drifted my thinking away from "like" and "such as". The only option left out was A.
Current Student
Joined: 09 Aug 2015
Posts: 92
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 2.3
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the 80-20 rule [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Sep 2015, 13:16
1
KUDOS
A cannot be correct. When the comparison towards the end and right after "no more than 20 percent from other sources", it is tremendously more logical for the following items to be examples of "other sources", than a comparison to the "the 80-20 rule for condos"

For A to be correct, it should go something like this:

Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule”, like the ground-floor rent rule for restaurants, required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and no more than 20 percent from other sources.

The part about "ground-floor rent rule for restauraunts" is simply too far away from the object that answer A incorrectly attempts to compare.

Once again, take every question that is not official GMAC material with a grain of salt. This does not appear to be a GMAT quality question.
Re: Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the 80-20 rule   [#permalink] 22 Sep 2015, 13:16

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 27 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by