In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil

Question

Project SC Butler: Day 189 Sentence Correction (SC2) 
 For SC butler Questions  Click Here

In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; the court ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.

A) Act; the court ruled that
B) Act, which ruled that
C) Act, with a ruling that
D) Act; they ruled that
E) Act and they ruled

A) Act; the court ruled that

B) Act, which ruled that

C) Act, with a ruling that

D) Act; they ruled that

E) Act and they ruled

Thank you!

generis · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION Project SC Butler: Day 188 Sentence Correction (SC2) • meaning? In a particular case in 1997, the Supreme Court surprised some observers when the court invalidated some parts of a law because the law violated constitutional protection of free speech enshrined in the First Amendment. for freedom of speech was unanimous.] • structure? Use a semicolon between closely related independent clauses that are not conjoined with a coordinating conjunction. In this sentence, it is easiest to convey the two related ideas as separate and independent clauses. THE PROMPT THE OPTIONS • I see no errors • "as" means "because" • the semicolon separates the separate but related ideas, avoiding ambiguous, incorrect, or misleading modification KEEP • which usually refers to the immediately preceding noun or the main noun of an immediately preceding noun + prepositional phrase • which can sometimes modify nouns farther away, but which cannot "jump" back over a verb such as "struck" • the provisions of the act (or the Act) did not "rule that violated freedom of speech provisions." Wrong meaning Eliminate B • Easiest way to eliminate is to compare to (A). (The comma + with issue is very difficult and GMAC is not very predictable.) (A) is better (clearer, no repeat of "ruling" that makes meaning weird, and "with" is a tough call). • with a ruling that is wordy and is not a proper modifying phrase ( Act, ruling that would be a proper modifying phrase) Eliminate C • they is plural. The Supreme Court is singular. At best, "they" illogically refers back to some observers and conveys the false impression that the observers made the ruling as opposed to the Supreme Court Eliminate D • same error as that in D Eliminate E The answer is A COMMENTS Good to see a couple of people whom I haven't seen in awhile. I am rushing because I couldn't post for a few hours, but the tech team did an awesome job and I'm back up. These answers are very good. Kudos to all.

sampriya · Answer

In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; the court ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.

A) Act; the court ruled that
B) Act, which ruled that
C) Act, with a ruling that
D) Act; they ruled that
E) Act and they ruled

A) Act; the court ruled that----  Correct 
the semicolon separates the two independent clauses.
and we clearly know that it is "the court" that gave the ruling

B) Act,  which  ruled that

which refers back to Communications Decency Act-- wrong!

C) Act, with a ruling that
the court did not pass the Act "with a ruling"- wrong!

D) Act;  they  ruled that
they illogically refers to "the court"

E) Act and  they  ruled
they illogically refers to the court

suchithra · Answer

The answer is A IMO.

A) Act; the court ruled that
No errors.

B) Act, which ruled that
which could refer to provisions of the Communications Decency Act or the Communications Decency Act. But both are incorrect. 
We want to refer supreme court.

C) Act, with a ruling that
Hmm. A contender but the usage of with actually doesn't make sense. Lets try the slash-and-burn method and try to reduce the sentence. 
A 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court surprised... with a ruling that. 
“With” is used when the noun after “with” attaches to the subject of preceding clause.
Here the subject is 9-0 ruling and not the court . Therefore incorrect

D) Act; they ruled that
No antecedent for they

E) Act and they ruled
No antecedent for they

exc4libur · Answer

MEANING
A ruling surprised some as it   struck down provisions of an Act.
Who ruled? The court, not the Act, the provisions, or they (observers);

B) "which" ref to "Act" or "provisions of the Act" imps one or the other "ruled", unintended;
C) "a ruling struck down X, with a ruling" unintended;
D) "they" who? observers? "a ruling" is singular, unintended;
E) "a ruling   struck down… and they  " sva error and unintended;

Ans (A)

Raxit85 · Answer

Imo. A

In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; the court ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.

A) Act; the court ruled that
B) Act, which ruled that
C) Act, with a ruling that
D) Act; they ruled that
E) Act and they ruled

A) Act; the court ruled that - Seems no error, noun - court mentioned appropriately and two independent clauses separated by semicolon. Hold it.

B) Act, which ruled that - Pronoun error, which refers to CDA - means CDA ruled that the law- nonsensical meaning.

C) Act, with a ruling that - preposition immediately preceding comma usually refers to the verb or action of preceding clause (in some cases noun of preceding clause). So, here usage of with is incorrect and it distorts the meaning also, e.g. ACLU surprised some people as it (ruling) struck down provisions of CDA, with a ruling that....

D) Act; they ruled that - Pronoun error as they can refer to observers, but it's not intended in the original sentence.

E) Act and they ruled - Parallelism and pronoun error.

eakabuah · Answer

In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; the court ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.

A) Act; the court ruled that
B) Act, which ruled that
C) Act, with a ruling that
D) Act; they ruled that
E) Act and they ruled

Meaning: The Supreme Court made a unanimous ruling in 1997. This ruling canceled an Act. The canceled Act, per the ruling, violated aspects of the freedom of speech.

Option A: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act;  the court ruled   that  the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.
Because of the semi-colon, I expect to see a main clause and option A has a main clause after the semi-colon: the court ruled. That acts as a subordinating conjunction to appropriately sub-ordinate the main clause the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment. Everything is okay in option A. Lets keep A.

Option B: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act,  which ruled   that  the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.
which ruled modifies the Communications Decency Act. It is not the Act which ruled, but rather the Court.  That , on the other hand, subordinates the main clause  the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment . Eliminate Option B because of the modifier error.

Option C: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act,  with a ruling  that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.
What does with a ruling modify? Is it intended to modify the Supreme Court? If it is intended to modify the Supreme Court, then there is a need to restate the court to precede with a ruling, in which case the  that clause  modifies  ruling . Eliminate option C as a result of the incomplete modification.

Option D: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act;  they  ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.
The logical antecedent for  they , which is plural, is  the Supreme Court , which is singular. There is a pronoun error in option D. Eliminate option D.

Option E: In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act and  color=#ff0000] they  ruled the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment  .
Just as in option D, option E also has a pronoun error. Instead of a singular pronoun, a plural pronoun  they  is used to refer to the singular noun The Supreme Court. Aside the pronoun error, option E also has a parallelism error. What is   they ruled the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment parallel to  ? There are punctuation errors in option E which distorts the sentence. Eliminate option E.

The answer is option E.

minustark · Answer

In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union surprised some observers as it struck down provisions of the Communications Decency Act; the court ruled that the law violated the freedom of speech provisions of the First Amendment.

A) Act; the court ruled that
B) Act, which ruled that
C) Act, with a ruling that
D) Act; they ruled that
E) Act and they ruled

A) Act; the court ruled that>>> precise and correct. cannot find any problem.

B) Act,  which  ruled that>>> which denotes the Act, but the verb ruled is associated with the Supreme Court.

C) Act, with a ruling that>>>distorts the meaning of the original sentence. with should be after some verb which is missing here.

D) Act; they ruled that>>>they have no clear antecedent. If it is indicating observers, then the sentence will lose intended meaning.

E) Act and they ruled>>> same as D.

Correct answer is A.

TheNightKing · Answer

A) Act; the court ruled that  Looks good. 2 Independent clauses joined with semi-colon. "The court ruled" leaves no room for ambiguity. Looks fine overall.

B) Act,  which  ruled that - The Act did not rule anything. So this is wrong.

C) Act,  with  a ruling that - The usage of "with" is inappropriate here. I don't know what more to explain about this option. Sorry

D) Act;  they  ruled that - It is the Court that ruled. So They is incorrect.

E) Act and they ruled   Same as D. Plus "and" creates a parallelism that is not needed.

Shef08 · Answer

Well, it’s a clear A. Whenever you see a semicolon ask yourself if it makes logical sense to have an independent clause because that is the only reason to have a semi colon as a separator.

In this question, the first clause speaks about the ruling and the other one says the court (sub) ruled out and blah blah. 
Any pronoun replacing it (like mentioned in the other options) modifies the meaning by saying that the act ruled out. But the meaning is the court ruled out the act.

Go for A

Posted from my mobile device

mykrasovski · Answer

For some reason, I could not submit the explanation with colors applied to text. I was getting some SQL errors and my message was not appearing even in Preview... So I ended up typing a new reply without using any colors (sorry for having a very dry post).

Quick read-through reveals that the sentence tests meaning and sentence structure. The first non-underlined part says that In 1997 a new ruling (law) surprised observers as it struck down provisions of some Act. The second portion of the sentence provides clarification (more information) regarding what happened. So, we deal with two independent clauses, which can be connected by a semicolon.

A) Act; the court ruled that
This option looks good. It matches our pre-thinking.

B) Act, which ruled that
The Act that was struck down did not rule anything. In fact, a new rule struck down the Act.

C) Act, with a ruling that
A modifier that starts with "with a ruling" is not as good as option (A).

D) Act; they ruled that
Who on Earth is they!? Observers? No, that makes no sense.

E) Act and they ruled
Same error as in (D). Also, we would need a comma to connect two independent clauses.

generis · Answer

The official explanation is  here .

In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil

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

In 1997, a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil

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