Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required

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

I agree with dagh.

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



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.

@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

IMO answer should be D

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

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



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.........

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

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.




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.



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:


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



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

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

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).

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.