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.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
35%
(medium)
Question Stats:
65% (01:31) correct
35%
(01:27)
wrong
based on 2426
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
This question is first practice problem in the meaning based questions and tests proper usage of modifiers. Correct and best explanation will get a Kudos from us and a free subscription for 1 month to our[highlight]OG Verbal 2 solutions for Sentence Correction[/highlight]. OG Verbal 2 solutions contain solutions to all SC questions using e-GMAT 3 step process- amounting to 14 hrs of audio visual content. Currently 60 solutions are uploaded. The set will be completed by the end of the month.
European leaders, who met until the early hours of Friday, agreed for signing, with the head of the World Bank, an intergovernmental treaty that would require it to enforce stricter fiscal and financial discipline in their future budgets.
We will provide the official answer in a couple of hrs.
Also Check out 5 strategies that GMAT uses to distort the meaning of the original sentence
5-strategies-that-gmat-uses-to-distort-meaning-124296.html
European leaders, who met until the early hours of Friday, agreed for signing, with the head of the World Bank, an intergovernmental treaty that would require it to enforce stricter fiscal and financial discipline in their future budgets.
- A. for signing, with the head of the World Bank, an intergovernmental treaty that would require it
B. to sign an intergovernmental treaty with the head of the world bank who would require them
C. to sign an intergovernmental treaty with the head of the world bank, requiring them
D. to sign, with the head of the world bank, an intergovernmental treaty that would require them
E. for signing an intergovernmental treaty with the head of the World Bank that would require them
We will provide the official answer in a couple of hrs.
Also Check out 5 strategies that GMAT uses to distort the meaning of the original sentence
5-strategies-that-gmat-uses-to-distort-meaning-124296.html
Quote:
Here is the official explanation for this question:
Understand the Meaning of the Original Sentence
The sentence states the following:
• European leaders met until Friday morning
• They agreed to sign a treaty – an intergovernmental treaty.
• They agreed to sign this treaty with the head of the World Bank.
• This treaty would require the leaders to enforce stricter fiscal and financial discipline in their future budgets.
Find the Errors in the Original Sentence
• European leaders,
o who met until the early hours of Friday,
• agreed for signing, with the head of the World Bank, an intergovernmental treaty
• that would require it to enforce stricter fiscal and financial discipline in their future budgets.
The sentence has been simplified into its clauses as shown above. All subject verb pairs are accounted for. The pronoun “it” in underlined portion of the sentence logically refers to “European leaders” but does not agree in number with its antecedent. Thus, this sentence has pronoun-antecedent number agreement error. Notice that the other pronoun “their” in non-underlined portion also logically refers to “European leaders”. Context of the sentence requires both these pronouns to refer to the “leaders”. Furthermore, the expression “for signing” is not appropriate. The sentence expresses an intention here – leaders agreed to do something. Thus, the more appropriate expression is “to sign”.
Review Answer choices to do POE
Choice B – Even though this choice is grammatically correct, it is not the correct answer since it distorts the meaning of the original sentence. The sentence per choice B implies that the head of the World Bank would require the leaders to enforce stricter rules. Even though this is logical, it is not what the original sentence states. Per the original sentence, it is the treaty that will enforce these regulations.
Choice C – This choice is grammatically correct but it no longer communicates the logical intended meaning of the sentence. By changing the “that modifier” into a “verb-ing modifier”, this sentence now implies that merely by agreeing to sign this treaty would result in enforcement of stricter controls and regulations. This is clearly not the logical sense.
Choice D – Correct choice.
Choice E – This choice repeats the “for signing” error as in choice A. Furthermore, the structure of this choice is such that now it is no longer clear what would require the leaders to enforce stricter controls. – the World Bank or the treaty. Notice carefully the change in placement of the modifiers in this choice.
TAKE AWAYS
1. Understand the intended meaning of the sentence well before you review the answer choices. If you do not do so, you may mark the seemingly correct choice as the correct answer when this choice in fact changes the meaning of the sentence.
2. Notice carefully any change in the modifier structure itself. The changed modifier may change the meaning of the sentence while still being grammatically correct and/or logically sound.
3. Use “to verb” to present intention.
Note: The attachment at https://gmatclub.com/forum/5-strategies-that-gmat-uses-to-distort-meaning-124296.html contains the document with Strategies for Meaning Change and the questions with detailed solutions. Note that this is a "living" document. We add the strategies, questions, and explanations in this document as we add them on the forum. So be sure to download the latest version!
General Discussion
09 Dec 2011, 21:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
IMO C should be the answer. Here is my reasoning:
"Agreed for" is unidiomatic. "Agreed to" is the proper idiom. That leaves us with options B, C & D. (A & E are out).
B - "who" is typically used for people. In option B, it applies to bank. Even though we mention the head of the world bank (who would be an individual), the "who" directly modifies only the "bank", not the "head of the world bank". That is why B is wrong.
D - The prepositional phrase set off by commas is not optional. If we put it in commas as done in option D, then it becomes optional. For example, the "who met until...Friday" part has been put off in commas. In this case, we do not necessarily require this piece of information to make logical sense of the sentence. The sentence would still stand despite the removal of the aforementioned phrase. However, the "with the head of the world bank" phrase is not optional. This part is very much required in the sentence. Who did the leaders sign the treaty with? This is the question that is answered by the phrase above. Hence, it cannot be put off by commas as done in option D.
In C, the leaders agreed to sign a treaty with the head of the world bank. This treaty required the leaders to enforce stricter fiscal and financial discipline in their future budgets. Hence, "requiring them" is appropriate because the "requiring" modifies treaty and "them" refers to "leaders".
This is how I understood and solved the problem. I may, however, be mistaken. Please post the OA with explanation. TIA.
"Agreed for" is unidiomatic. "Agreed to" is the proper idiom. That leaves us with options B, C & D. (A & E are out).
B - "who" is typically used for people. In option B, it applies to bank. Even though we mention the head of the world bank (who would be an individual), the "who" directly modifies only the "bank", not the "head of the world bank". That is why B is wrong.
D - The prepositional phrase set off by commas is not optional. If we put it in commas as done in option D, then it becomes optional. For example, the "who met until...Friday" part has been put off in commas. In this case, we do not necessarily require this piece of information to make logical sense of the sentence. The sentence would still stand despite the removal of the aforementioned phrase. However, the "with the head of the world bank" phrase is not optional. This part is very much required in the sentence. Who did the leaders sign the treaty with? This is the question that is answered by the phrase above. Hence, it cannot be put off by commas as done in option D.
In C, the leaders agreed to sign a treaty with the head of the world bank. This treaty required the leaders to enforce stricter fiscal and financial discipline in their future budgets. Hence, "requiring them" is appropriate because the "requiring" modifies treaty and "them" refers to "leaders".
This is how I understood and solved the problem. I may, however, be mistaken. Please post the OA with explanation. TIA.
