|
|
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.
26 Dec 2021, 00:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
59% (01:20) correct
41%
(01:36)
wrong
based on 234
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The Supreme Court has ruled that universities must allow the armed forces to recruit on campus unless they want to risk losing federal funding.
A) must allow the armed forces to recruit on campus unless they want to risk losing federal funding
B) should allow the armed forces to recruit on their campuses unless they want to risk losing their federal funding
C) should allow armed forces recruitment on campus or else they will lose their federal funding
D) must allow the armed forces to recruit on its campus in order to not risk a loss of federal funding
E) must allow the armed forces to recruit on campus or else risk losing federal funding
A) must allow the armed forces to recruit on campus unless they want to risk losing federal funding
B) should allow the armed forces to recruit on their campuses unless they want to risk losing their federal funding
C) should allow armed forces recruitment on campus or else they will lose their federal funding
D) must allow the armed forces to recruit on its campus in order to not risk a loss of federal funding
E) must allow the armed forces to recruit on campus or else risk losing federal funding
26 Dec 2021, 01:03
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
THE PROMPT
THE OPTIONS
• they is not ambiguous, but the sentence would probably be better without the word they
→ To decide whether a pronoun is ambiguous, ask yourself whether more than one antecedent could logically be the target.
It does not matter that two nouns "qualify" in number as plural antecedents for they.
As long as only one word is a logical antecedent, no pronoun ambiguity exists.
→ The only logical antecedent for they must be universities.
The court tells the universities what to do (allow armed forces to recruit) and, relatedly, what the consequences of not complying are (risk losing federal funds).
The armed forces is the noun in the background.
KEEP, but tentatively, and look for a better answer.
→ A court ruling is not a piece of advice. A ruling is a command.
You might be told by a professor that you "should" do something because it is a good idea.
If a court hands you a ruling, it is telling you that you must do something, whether or not you think that something is a good idea.
When we talk about commands, in terms of diction, we use the word must, not should.
• Again, logically, no pronoun ambiguity.
The armed forces are not the ones in trouble here—the armed forces are not the recipients / targets of the court ruling, and neither will the armed forces lose federal funding because such loss is a consequence of not complying with the court order. That court order is not directed at the armed forces.
ELIMINATE B
• Meaning ambiguity created by pronoun ambiguity
→ In this sentence, the word they and the phrase or else make it possible for the words to sound as though the armed forces will lose federal funding if universities do not allow the armed forces to recruit on campus.
→ On the other hand, it is also reasonable to say that the sentence indicates that the universities will lose federal funding if they do not allow the armed forces to recruit on campus.
ELIMINATE C
→ The singular its cannot refer to plural universities.
We know that its refers to universities because the latter have campuses.
The armed forces may also have universities with campuses, but "the armed forces" in general is not a phrase associated with campuses.
• stylistic error (this error would be a tie-breaker in the event one were needed)
→ The phrase in order to not risk a loss of federal funding is clumsy, wordy, and lacking in flow.
Compare that phrasing, for example, to the phrasing in option E: or else risk losing federal funding.
Option E wins.
ELIMINATE D
• as is correct in the context of a court ruling, this option uses correctly uses must
• the absence of pronouns creates a sentence without any potential ambiguity.
From verbs alone, we understand that universities must do X or risk losing Y.
• The prose is streamlined and clear.
• Pronoun ambiguity and option A
I want to be really clear: pronoun ambiguity should be among the last things you check.
True pronoun ambiguity is fairly rare on the GMAT.
If you are down to two options and one contains absolutely no risk of pronoun ambiguity, choose that one.
Accordingly, we are going to choose option E over option A.
Stylistically, option E is superior to option A; (E) is clear and concise.
Eliminate A.
KEEP
The correct answer is E.
COMMENTS
Andy11 , welcome to SC Butler. I am glad to have you.
All aspirants have a standing invitation to post.
I am glad to see everyone, including a few people whom I have not seen in a little while.
I am also glad to see disagreement among you.
Why? Because you all reflect much of what is "out there" in the world of GMAT SC knowledge.
At different junctures, you posters are what we call "relatable."
Most of what all of you write is correct; some is not correct, but that fact is a good thing.
You are taking risks, trying to explain (yes!), and showing others that it is not a big deal to make a mistake.
In the spirit of the day that this question was posted, everyone gets kudos.
Keep up the good work.
THE PROMPT
Quote:
THE OPTIONS
Quote:
• they is not ambiguous, but the sentence would probably be better without the word they
→ To decide whether a pronoun is ambiguous, ask yourself whether more than one antecedent could logically be the target.
It does not matter that two nouns "qualify" in number as plural antecedents for they.
As long as only one word is a logical antecedent, no pronoun ambiguity exists.
→ The only logical antecedent for they must be universities.
The court tells the universities what to do (allow armed forces to recruit) and, relatedly, what the consequences of not complying are (risk losing federal funds).
The armed forces is the noun in the background.
KEEP, but tentatively, and look for a better answer.
Quote:
• Diction error: use must, not should
→ A court ruling is not a piece of advice. A ruling is a command.
You might be told by a professor that you "should" do something because it is a good idea.
If a court hands you a ruling, it is telling you that you must do something, whether or not you think that something is a good idea.
When we talk about commands, in terms of diction, we use the word must, not should.
• Again, logically, no pronoun ambiguity.
The armed forces are not the ones in trouble here—the armed forces are not the recipients / targets of the court ruling, and neither will the armed forces lose federal funding because such loss is a consequence of not complying with the court order. That court order is not directed at the armed forces.
ELIMINATE B
Quote:
• Diction error: use must, not should
• Meaning ambiguity created by pronoun ambiguity
→ In this sentence, the word they and the phrase or else make it possible for the words to sound as though the armed forces will lose federal funding if universities do not allow the armed forces to recruit on campus.
→ On the other hand, it is also reasonable to say that the sentence indicates that the universities will lose federal funding if they do not allow the armed forces to recruit on campus.
ELIMINATE C
Quote:
• pronoun disagreement
→ The singular its cannot refer to plural universities.
We know that its refers to universities because the latter have campuses.
The armed forces may also have universities with campuses, but "the armed forces" in general is not a phrase associated with campuses.
• stylistic error (this error would be a tie-breaker in the event one were needed)
→ The phrase in order to not risk a loss of federal funding is clumsy, wordy, and lacking in flow.
Compare that phrasing, for example, to the phrasing in option E: or else risk losing federal funding.
Option E wins.
ELIMINATE D
Quote:
• I do not see any errors
• as is correct in the context of a court ruling, this option uses correctly uses must
• the absence of pronouns creates a sentence without any potential ambiguity.
From verbs alone, we understand that universities must do X or risk losing Y.
• The prose is streamlined and clear.
• Pronoun ambiguity and option A
I want to be really clear: pronoun ambiguity should be among the last things you check.
True pronoun ambiguity is fairly rare on the GMAT.
If you are down to two options and one contains absolutely no risk of pronoun ambiguity, choose that one.
Accordingly, we are going to choose option E over option A.
Stylistically, option E is superior to option A; (E) is clear and concise.
Eliminate A.
KEEP
The correct answer is E.
COMMENTS
Andy11 , welcome to SC Butler. I am glad to have you.
All aspirants have a standing invitation to post.
I am glad to see everyone, including a few people whom I have not seen in a little while.
I am also glad to see disagreement among you.
Why? Because you all reflect much of what is "out there" in the world of GMAT SC knowledge.
At different junctures, you posters are what we call "relatable."
Most of what all of you write is correct; some is not correct, but that fact is a good thing.
You are taking risks, trying to explain (yes!), and showing others that it is not a big deal to make a mistake.
In the spirit of the day that this question was posted, everyone gets kudos.
Keep up the good work.
General Discussion
26 Dec 2021, 01:41
Kudos
Bookmarks
generis
In Gmat Should is not preferred, also the ruling has been passed so the authoritarian command is present which makes must the correct choice.
B & C is out.
In D the use of in order to changes the meaning of the sentence.
Between A and E
A is better structured and clear meaning is portrayed.
