GMAT Club Forum
https://gmatclub.com:443/forum/

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that the prosecution in a job disc
https://gmatclub.com/forum/because-the-supreme-court-has-ruled-that-the-prosecution-in-a-job-disc-116585-20.html
Page 2 of 2

Author:  Mansiar [ 05 Aug 2021, 10:31 ]
Post subject:  Re: Because the Supreme Court has ruled that the prosecution in a job disc

"To which to appeal"
Instead, if we say ".... they will have no higher court to appeal to after their cases have been decided in lower courts", does this construction pose an issue?

Author:  himanshu0123 [ 07 Aug 2022, 09:00 ]
Post subject:  Re: Because the Supreme Court has ruled that the prosecution in a job disc

use of 'have been'' in option B] tells us that the work is already done in the past.

However, we are talking about fears of plaintiffs. Fears might be true in future but not true yet.

why not option A]?

Author:  jabhatta2 [ 07 Aug 2022, 14:00 ]
Post subject:  Re: Because the Supreme Court has ruled that the prosecution in a job disc

KarishmaB - i have read that in (c) -- (c) can be eliminated because of the usage of "for appealing"

In fact - i have read that "For Verb ING" is less preferred.

Could you please logically perhaps explain why "For Verb ING" is less preferred.

Author:  KarishmaB [ 07 Aug 2022, 21:13 ]
Post subject:  Re: Because the Supreme Court has ruled that the prosecution in a job disc

jabhatta2 wrote:
KarishmaB - i have read that in (c) -- (c) can be eliminated because of the usage of "for appealing"

In fact - i have read that "For Verb ING" is less preferred.

Could you please logically perhaps explain why "For Verb ING" is less preferred.


We eliminate (C) because of the use of singular 'case' with plural 'plaintiffs.' Each is likely to have his/her own cases so plaintiffs will have cases.
'to verb' is preferred over 'for verb-ing' to show intent but I cannot eliminate based on that. It's a language preference, not a tight rule and we know it because 'for verb-ing' is usually found in incorrect options (incorrect because of other reasons) while the correct options usually have 'to verb.'

Author:  CRACKGMATNUT [ 19 Aug 2022, 23:18 ]
Post subject:  Re: Because the Supreme Court has ruled that the prosecution in a job disc

30 second solution approach through elimination method.

A) that they can appeal to when their cases are -->Here when marks the starting of subordinate clause. which means earlier sentence ( They can appeal TO ) ended with a preposition. A clause cannot end in preposition. Eliminate

B) to which to appeal after their cases have been--> No grammatical error straight away, only sounds bad. Hold on

C) for appealing if their case has been--> Multiple plaintiff fighting a single case. Even though this can be possible but as per option A ( the option that orchestrate the real meaning of sentence ) wants multiple cases by multiple plaintiff . So eliminate

D) Out for same reason as C

E) that their cases can appeal, if they have been --> Cases don't appeal. Eliminate


So left with B.

Author:  GMATNinja [ 29 Nov 2022, 19:08 ]
Post subject:  Re: Because the Supreme Court has ruled that the prosecution in a job disc

himanshu0123 wrote:
use of 'have been'' in option B] tells us that the work is already done in the past.

However, we are talking about fears of plaintiffs. Fears might be true in future but not true yet.

why not option A]?

(A) isn't terrible, and in a vacuum there might not be anything "wrong" with it, but our beloved compatriot Daagh was spot on in this post. The chronology of events is just a bit clearer and more logical in (B): the fears are ongoing (simple present), and an appeal would happen AFTER a case has been decided in a lower court, not WHEN a case is decided in a lower court.

Also, "to which to appeal" is a little better than "that they can appeal to" in this case, since it makes the meaning a little bit more clear and direct. Rather than just describing the higher court with a noun modifier, the phrase "to which to appeal" makes the relationship between the plaintiff and the higher court immediately clear and precise: the plaintiffs would appeal to higher courts.

Lastly, the multiple "that" clauses in (A) are a bit hard to follow ("... fear that they will have no higher court that they can appeal to"). At first glance, it almost looks like a parallel list of fears. That certainly doesn't make (A) definitively WRONG, but it gives us another small vote in favor of (B).

Again, (A) probably isn't wrong in a bubble, but (B) is a better, clearer choice.

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/