The judge told the jury that he had excused a juror for

Question

The judge told the jury that he had excused a juror for having purposely provided murder photos to the media and then  stashed the money received to hide evidence supporting  his claim of innocence.

(A) stashed the money received to hide evidence supporting
(B) stashed such money as he received to hide evidence supporting
(C) stashed the money he had received to hide evidence that would support
(D) of stashing the money he had received to hide evidence that would support
(E) of stashing such money as he received to hide evidence that would be supportive of

feruz77 · Answer

Who can explain the OA, i.e. how "for having" can be parallel with "of stashing"?

Thanks beforehand.

shrive555 · Answer

i went for C, D could be best option if it were for stashing

Mackieman · Answer

The judge told the jury that he had excused a juror for having....and....of stashing

Excused for is the correct idiom I guess, and having and stashing for ||ism?

naveenhv · Answer

I still don't get how 'of stashing' is correct

WaterFlowsUp · Answer

Bumping for review and further discussion*.

*New project from GMAT Club!!! Check  HERE

Theory on parallelism: 
 Parallelism - Grammar vs Logic 
 PARALLELISM: IMPERFECT LIST 
 MARKERS FOR PARALLEL LIST

animanga008 · Answer

i hope somebody explains this OA...i dont get it at all

neelzwiz · Answer

The judge told the jury that he had excused a juror for having purposely provided murder photos to the media and then stashed the money received to hide evidence supporting his claim of innocence.

The question is to test verb tense and parallellism

The judge told the jury that he had excused a juror
1.for having purposely provided murder photos to the media
and then
2. stashed the money received to hide evidence supporting his claim of innocence.

clearly not parallel.

As the first list starts with verbing modifier, the second as well should start with verding

So down with options D & E.

(E) of stashing such money as he received to hide evidence that would be supportive of
as he received in past tense. Should be in past perfect.
also supportive of his claim of innosence - unidiomatic.

So ans is D.

Hope it helps.
Kudos pls if it helps

Narenn · Answer

D is Correct

It is important to know the structure of the sentence.

Main Clause :-  (Subject) The judge  (Main Verb) told  (Direct Object) the jury that..........
Subordinate Clause :-  (Subject) he  (Verb) had excused  (Object) a juror  (Compound Predicate) for having purposely provided murder photos to the media and then stashed the money received to hide evidence supporting his claim of innocence.

The compound predicate should contains two predicates (Two reasons for which Juror had been excused), that are parallel to each other.

Predicate 1 :-  for having purposely provided murder photos to the media (Adjectival Clause - Modifying the object - Juror) 
Predicate 2 :-  then stashed the money received to hide evidence supporting his claim of innocence. :- The verb  stashed  makes this part an independent clause referring to The Judge and thus is not parallel to Predicate 1. So A is out.

B) INCORRECT - for the same reason cited in Choice A

C) INCORRECT - for the same reason cited in Choice A

D) CORRECT - This choice converts the independent clause in Adjectival Phrase which is parallel to first predicate.

E) INCORRECT - Wordy structures :- such money as, that would be supportive of....

Hope that helps!

sgangs · Answer

Kindly explain the use of "had received" in the OA. What is the past tense with respect to which "had received money" is furthur past?It must be that the juror first showed the photo & then he got the money?

What am I missing??

What am I missing??

andrewsj214 · Answer

Sorry, folks, but this sentence makes absolutely no sense. You may accuse someone of stashing, but you don't excuse them of stashing.

Also, what does "hide evidence supporting his claim of innocence" mean? That he would prefer to be found guilty? Wouldn't he instead hide evidence contradicting his claim of innocence???? Who came up with this sentence anyway--Paris Hilton???? No, couldn't be--in that case, it would contain at least 4 or 5 "like"s.

ilpadre123 · Answer

Sorry, but this still does not make sense to me.

We obviously deal with a parallel structure here, but "excuse so. of sth." is unidiomatic IMO.

Can someone comment on this?

kivalo · Answer

What's parallel to what here, I did not see a satisfying answeer? ' of stashing' is parallel to what?

TejasD · Answer

Just try to read it carefully and realize who does the action of stashing the money refers to!

In A,B and C , stashed refers to judge. Which is wrong. The judge didn't stash the money.

Read 'excused the juror' followed by 'of stashing'.

Excused the juror of stashing.

Excuse someone of something

Sent from my XT1562 using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

leanhdung · Answer

Hi sayantanc2k mikemcgarry egmat VeritasPrepKarishma

Can you explain to me why in option D (which is supposed to be correct by GMAT Timer) GMAT uses preposition of while the correct idiom is excuse for ? Many thanks!

shekyonline · Answer

The judge told the jury that he had excused a juror for having....and....of stashing

Excused for is the correct idiom I guess, and having and stashing for ||ism?

(A)  stashed  the money received to hide evidence supporting
(B)  stashed  such money as he received to hide evidence supporting
(C)  stashed  the money he had received to hide evidence that would support
(D)   of stashing   the money he had received to hide evidence that would support
(E) of stashing such money as he received to hide evidence that would be  supportive of

leanhdung · Answer

Experts, please explain why in option  D  (which is supposed to be correct by GMAT Timer) GMAT uses preposition  of  while the correct idiom is  excuse for ?

Many thanks!

AjiteshArun · Answer

This is just a bad question. Leave it.

GMATNinja · Answer

Sorry folks, this question is deeply, deeply flawed. The parallelism in (D) seems to be saying that the judge "excused a juror of stashing the money..." -- and that makes absolutely zero sense.

I don't know where this one came from, but please don't spend any more time worrying about it.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

The judge told the jury that he had excused a juror for

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