by: 2vienna
21 mins
by: WhiteTide
37 mins
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.
Sep 1507:00 PM EDT
-09:00 PM EST
Elite scores are possible when you enroll in a powerful GMAT course, taught live online + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Tues/Thurs Sept. 15, 2026 - Nov. 15, 2027, 7:00pm-9:00pm EST
Sep 2107:00 PM EDT
-10:00 PM EDT
Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class + 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included! Class starts Mon, Tues, Wed, Thur, Fri Sept. 21, 2026 - Oct. 9, 2027, 7:00pm-10:00pm EST
thelosthippie
Joined: 03 Mar 2013
Last visit: 05 Jan 2014
Posts: 39
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 3
WE:Information Technology (Telecommunications)
Updated on: 14 Oct 2021, 00:16
Originally posted by thelosthippie on 27 Apr 2013, 03:44.
Last edited by Bunuel on 14 Oct 2021, 00:16, edited 2 times in total.
Last edited by Bunuel on 14 Oct 2021, 00:16, edited 2 times in total.
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
20% (01:49) correct
80%
(01:55)
wrong
based on 3801
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.
(A) Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.
(B) Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” requiring that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.
(C) Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.
(D) Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.
(E) Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and to have no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.
(A) Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.
(B) Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” requiring that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.
(C) Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.
(D) Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.
(E) Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and to have no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/14/realestate/the-maintenance-free-co-op-now-less-elusive.html
Until 2007, a federal tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that residential co-ops receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for retail space. If they didn’t comply, buildings lost their legal status as co-ops and the tax benefits that come with it. As a result, buildings charged below-market rent for their commercial spaces or otherwise performed legal gymnastics to retain their status as co-ops.
Solution: A
Explanation: The primary difficulty in this question refers to a false decision point between “such as” and “like”.
Generally speaking, you use “such as” when what follows is an example of what precedes it and you use “like” when you are making a comparison.
However, grammar experts do not agree on this usage and many top editors (including most at the New York Times) permit the usage of like in examples like “colors like pink and red.”
Be careful about applying rules that you think are strict when they really are not: in math 2 + 2 is always 4 but in grammar there are few absolutes.
Therefore, at the end both “like” and “such as” are acceptable so you must find other decision points.
In (B) there is no active verb as “requiring” is just a participle.
In (C), (D), and (E) “have no more…” is incorrect: you do not “have 20% of your income from other sources” you “receive 20% of your income from other sources”.
Only (A) gets the predication correct: “require that associations receive at least 80% from this…, and no more than 20% from other sources”
The comma confuses some students but it is there to make it clear that the first part ends after “from shareholders.”
The sentence is really “receive at least 80% from this and no more than 20% from this…”.
Answer is (A).
Until 2007, a federal tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that residential co-ops receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for retail space. If they didn’t comply, buildings lost their legal status as co-ops and the tax benefits that come with it. As a result, buildings charged below-market rent for their commercial spaces or otherwise performed legal gymnastics to retain their status as co-ops.
Solution: A
Explanation: The primary difficulty in this question refers to a false decision point between “such as” and “like”.
Generally speaking, you use “such as” when what follows is an example of what precedes it and you use “like” when you are making a comparison.
However, grammar experts do not agree on this usage and many top editors (including most at the New York Times) permit the usage of like in examples like “colors like pink and red.”
Be careful about applying rules that you think are strict when they really are not: in math 2 + 2 is always 4 but in grammar there are few absolutes.
Therefore, at the end both “like” and “such as” are acceptable so you must find other decision points.
In (B) there is no active verb as “requiring” is just a participle.
In (C), (D), and (E) “have no more…” is incorrect: you do not “have 20% of your income from other sources” you “receive 20% of your income from other sources”.
Only (A) gets the predication correct: “require that associations receive at least 80% from this…, and no more than 20% from other sources”
The comma confuses some students but it is there to make it clear that the first part ends after “from shareholders.”
The sentence is really “receive at least 80% from this and no more than 20% from this…”.
Answer is (A).
Posts: 142
On the other hand!:
I found some rationale of A:
Most of us rejected A because the "like" is used to introduce an example.
Well, it is not.
The "like" introduces a comparison here and is thus used correctly.
The ground floor rent IS NOT one of income sources for the condominum associations (CAs), but it IS one of income sources for restaurants. So, the "other sources" for CAs are compared to the other sources for restaurants (such as ground-floor rent), and the "ground-floor rent" is not an income source for CAs, thus it is not an example of "other sources" for CAs.
This is the case with the "like".
Further, "required that" uses correct Command Subjunctive. As to the previous posts, the "have" in the second clause can be omitted without any damage to the sentence. It is redundant. The comma before ", and" is also correctly placed, as a comma between two long parallel clauses should be (also before the coordinating conjunction and!).
A is the best answer choice, though hellishly convoluted. Perhaps we all fell victims to the inflexible way of thinking, putting an obtuse grammar rule way above... thinking
.
I found some rationale of A:
Most of us rejected A because the "like" is used to introduce an example.
Well, it is not.
The "like" introduces a comparison here and is thus used correctly.
Quote:
The ground floor rent IS NOT one of income sources for the condominum associations (CAs), but it IS one of income sources for restaurants. So, the "other sources" for CAs are compared to the other sources for restaurants (such as ground-floor rent), and the "ground-floor rent" is not an income source for CAs, thus it is not an example of "other sources" for CAs.
This is the case with the "like".
Further, "required that" uses correct Command Subjunctive. As to the previous posts, the "have" in the second clause can be omitted without any damage to the sentence. It is redundant. The comma before ", and" is also correctly placed, as a comma between two long parallel clauses should be (also before the coordinating conjunction and!).
A is the best answer choice, though hellishly convoluted. Perhaps we all fell victims to the inflexible way of thinking, putting an obtuse grammar rule way above... thinking
. 
avohden
Joined: 09 Jul 2013
Last visit: 14 Mar 2015
Posts: 403
Status:1,750 Q's attempted and counting
Affiliations: University of Florida
Location: United States (FL)
Schools: Warrington (A)
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V28
GMAT 2: 610 Q44 V30
GMAT 3: 600 Q45 V29
GMAT 4: 590 Q35 V35
GPA: 3.45
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Here is the official explanation from Veritas.
Answer is (A). The primary difficulty in this question refers to a false decision point between “such as” and “like”. Generally speaking, you use “such as” when what follows is an example of what precedes it and you use “like” when you are making a comparison. However, grammar experts do not agree on this usage and many top editors (including most at the New York Times) permit the usage of like in examples like “colors like pink and red.” Be careful about applying rules that you think are strict when they really are not: in math 2 + 2 is always 4 but in grammar there are few absolutes. Therefore, at the end both “like” and “such as” are acceptable so you must find other decision points.
In (B) there is no active verb as “requiring” is just a participle. In (C), (D), and (E) “have no more…” is incorrect: you do not “have 20% of your income from other sources” you “receive 20% of your income from other sources”. Only (A) gets the predication correct: “require that associations receive at least 80% from this…, and no more than 20% from other sources” The comma confuses some students but it is there to make it clear that the first part ends after “from shareholders.” The sentence is really “receive at least 80% from this and no more than 20% from this…”.
Answer is (A). The primary difficulty in this question refers to a false decision point between “such as” and “like”. Generally speaking, you use “such as” when what follows is an example of what precedes it and you use “like” when you are making a comparison. However, grammar experts do not agree on this usage and many top editors (including most at the New York Times) permit the usage of like in examples like “colors like pink and red.” Be careful about applying rules that you think are strict when they really are not: in math 2 + 2 is always 4 but in grammar there are few absolutes. Therefore, at the end both “like” and “such as” are acceptable so you must find other decision points.
In (B) there is no active verb as “requiring” is just a participle. In (C), (D), and (E) “have no more…” is incorrect: you do not “have 20% of your income from other sources” you “receive 20% of your income from other sources”. Only (A) gets the predication correct: “require that associations receive at least 80% from this…, and no more than 20% from other sources” The comma confuses some students but it is there to make it clear that the first part ends after “from shareholders.” The sentence is really “receive at least 80% from this and no more than 20% from this…”.
General Discussion
All I know is that A cannot be the choice, since A is using like to state examples. The text is not comparing ground floor rents with anything. It is an example of income from other sources. This is a fatal error.
Among others:
B Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants. --- This is a fragment without a finite verb for the main clause
C Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.—This is a classic subjunctive mood clause. Looks perfect to me; the three essentials are present: The command word ‘required’ is there; that is there; and the verb of the sub-clause is base form (receive, have no more
D. Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and to have no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants. --- This is another version of C, wherein the infinitives are used instead of base verbs; again perfectly befitting, IMO.
E; Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and to have no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.—as wrong as A for using like for examples.
Between C and D, it is difficult to make out, unless there is a reason for preferring one over the other. I personally prefer C because of the sunbjuntiveness of the mood
_________________
Among others:
B Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants. --- This is a fragment without a finite verb for the main clause
C Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and have no more than 20 percent from other sources, such as ground-floor rent for restaurants.—This is a classic subjunctive mood clause. Looks perfect to me; the three essentials are present: The command word ‘required’ is there; that is there; and the verb of the sub-clause is base form (receive, have no more
D. Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and to have no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants. --- This is another version of C, wherein the infinitives are used instead of base verbs; again perfectly befitting, IMO.
E; Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule” required condominium associations to receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and to have no more than 20 percent from other sources, like ground-floor rent for restaurants.—as wrong as A for using like for examples.
Between C and D, it is difficult to make out, unless there is a reason for preferring one over the other. I personally prefer C because of the sunbjuntiveness of the mood
_________________
Thank you Daagh for your time on GMAT Club and all your contributions! Thank you for everything you did!
Your work will remain a great tribute to you here on GMAT Club!
-bb
Your work will remain a great tribute to you here on GMAT Club!
-bb
Posts: 142
I agree with dagh.
IMO this one is also correct: "require" works as well with Command Subjunctive (as in C) as with "to infinitive". Manhattan SC mentions that on page 114. Also, the "to" before have in the second clause can be legally omitted.
As to refuting A as the correct answer I fully agree with daagh.
I would also choose C with the Command Subjunctive mood, because the passage describes a tax regulation, so formal English is better suited here and Command Subjunctive is an instrument in formal language.
daagh
I know the form of infinitive without "to" as "bare", not "base" infinitive. Are these names interchangeable?
thelosthippie
IMO this one is also correct: "require" works as well with Command Subjunctive (as in C) as with "to infinitive". Manhattan SC mentions that on page 114. Also, the "to" before have in the second clause can be legally omitted.
As to refuting A as the correct answer I fully agree with daagh.
I would also choose C with the Command Subjunctive mood, because the passage describes a tax regulation, so formal English is better suited here and Command Subjunctive is an instrument in formal language.
@HumptyDumpty:
I only referred to as base verb that is the first form of any verb structure such as receive, received, received; jump. jumped, jumped etc., and not any bare infinitive. How can we exchange a verb with an infinitive, bare or no bare
_________________
I only referred to as base verb that is the first form of any verb structure such as receive, received, received; jump. jumped, jumped etc., and not any bare infinitive. How can we exchange a verb with an infinitive, bare or no bare
_________________
Thank you Daagh for your time on GMAT Club and all your contributions! Thank you for everything you did!
Your work will remain a great tribute to you here on GMAT Club!
-bb
Your work will remain a great tribute to you here on GMAT Club!
-bb
IMO answer should be D
The error is like used for examples instead of such as. The issue with C is required (past tense) is combined with infinitive - to receive (which typically shows intent).
I think required that goes with receive and require goes with to receive
The error is like used for examples instead of such as. The issue with C is required (past tense) is combined with infinitive - to receive (which typically shows intent).
I think required that goes with receive and require goes with to receive
nt2010
Hi nt2010.
I'm on the same boat, IMO D is better than A because A use "like" to mention examples.
Quote:
Not necessarily, past tense or present tense doesn't matter. Correct idioms are:
require X to do Y
require that X do Y (without to)
C is wrong because:.........required X.....to receive.............and have.........
daagh
Hi daagh.
I think you switched the order of C and D? As you explained, D should be correct? Please confirm. Thanks
Posts: 142
pqhai
This form is correct, it is NOT an error. The second "to" is usually omitted by two infinitives, just as any other repetition in parallel structures. E.g.:
The reporter wants to go and (to) interview the celebrity in person.
Tom is doing his homework and (is) listening to music.
Compare: GMAT Club Grammar Book, p. 75.
nt2010
No such error exists in C.
First, the "required" is not a parallel to the "receive". After "required to" two verbs are used in a correct parallel structure: receive (at least...) and have (no more...). Moreover, the "required" in the Simple Past tense is correct here, as there is "Until 2010" at the beginning of the sentence.
Show SpoilerOn "until"
"Until" means "up to (the point in time or the event mentioned)", therefore it calls for using relative tense. Proper use of "Until":
Until you find the key, we shall/will not be able to get in.
I am not coming until I am asked.
I did not know until you told me.
Until you find the key, we shall/will not be able to get in.
I am not coming until I am asked.
I did not know until you told me.
Second, "required that" implements a Command Subjunctive, which is a mood in English language and will always go with bare infinitive form. Furthermore, as you wrote: "require goes with to receive" - this is misunderstood. The preposition "to" belongs not to the "receive" here, but to the "require". The idiomatic form is Require sb to do sh, just as pqhai wrote:
pqhai
I can only add that the second structure is the Command Subjunctive mood (CSM).
Show SpoilerOn CSM
The only correct structure of the Command Subjunctive mood is as presented in the sentence, i.e.: bossy verb + that + bare infinitive. E.g.: We demand that he be here.; The assembly proposed that the schoolboard disband.; The chairman suggested that the CEO redeploy.
Hence, both C and D are grammatically and logically correct.
Me too in a first instance picked C.
but as usual is important to revise a question in particular whan you pick it wrong and is difficult such this question.
So: if we look at the sentence ONLY from the meaning standing point in B C D and E (I do not see anything else: no like no other grammar rule) have or to have it's like an huge black hole.
It doesn't hold anywater. Completely syupid to think (for me of course) to solely think to the other answer choices......
The meaning guys..........is the key in such SC.
regards
_________________
but as usual is important to revise a question in particular whan you pick it wrong and is difficult such this question.
So: if we look at the sentence ONLY from the meaning standing point in B C D and E (I do not see anything else: no like no other grammar rule) have or to have it's like an huge black hole.
It doesn't hold anywater. Completely syupid to think (for me of course) to solely think to the other answer choices......
The meaning guys..........is the key in such SC.regards
_________________
Free Materials for the GRE General Exam - Where to get it!!
GMAT FE - COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
QUANT: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal-2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation-3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS
4. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
VERBAL:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass-2. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks-3. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks
GMAT FE - COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
QUANT: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal-2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation-3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS
4. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
VERBAL:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass-2. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks-3. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks
Hey guys,
My first post here. I'm more of a passive user
From what I understand, this question makes use of the "bossy verbs" - referring to words such as "required", "proposed", "demanded".
Bossy verbs are, in most cases, followed by "that" (commanded that, required that etc).
So, vertical scanning leaves us with options A, B and D.
B and D are eliminated because of such as (like is preferred because there is a direct comparison).
My first post here. I'm more of a passive user
From what I understand, this question makes use of the "bossy verbs" - referring to words such as "required", "proposed", "demanded".
Bossy verbs are, in most cases, followed by "that" (commanded that, required that etc).
So, vertical scanning leaves us with options A, B and D.
B and D are eliminated because of such as (like is preferred because there is a direct comparison).
thelosthippie
Like is used correctly. "Ground-floor rent for restaurants" is not an example of other sources. It's being compared to condominium rent. Like=similar to. Income from their tenant-shareholders is similar to ground-floor rent for restaurants. The only answer choices left are A & E. E seems wordy & "to have no more" sounds a bit off to me
Please give me kudos if my post has helped you
benyahalom
In option A..."Like" is used to compare two things("income from other sources" with "ground-floor rent") not to list examples.
animanga008
Joined: 02 Apr 2013
Last visit: 24 Jan 2017
Posts: 40
Concentration: General Management, Technology
Schools: Foster '18 (D) McCombs '18 (II) Anderson '18 (S) Marshall '18 (II) W. P. Carey Arizona State '18 (A)
GPA: 3
WE:Science (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Products:
Can anyone help explain the difference between " required that condominium associations receive at least 80 ," and "required condominium associations receive at least 80 ?"
Thanks
Thanks
ramannanda9
Joined: 15 May 2013
Last visit: 22 Apr 2015
Posts: 103
Status:Persevering
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Leadership
GMAT Date: 08-02-2013
GPA: 3.7
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Posts: 103
animanga008
Second one is just wrong. required takes either that or to form. So required that or required condominium associations to would be correct.
_________________
--It's one thing to get defeated, but another to accept it.
Posts: 52
mohit879
How do we know that like is being used to compare and not to list examples?
My impression was that restaurant is an example of the source
happyinlove505
The ground floor rent IS NOT one of income sources for the condominum associations (CAs), but it IS one of income sources for restaurants. So, the "other sources" for CAs are compared to the other sources for restaurants (such as ground-floor rent), and the "ground-floor rent" is not an income source for CAs, thus it is not an example of "other sources" for CAs.
This is the case with the "like".
Further, "required that" uses correct Command Subjunctive. As to the previous posts, the "have" in the second clause can be omitted without any damage to the sentence. It is redundant. The comma before ", and" is also correctly placed, as a comma between two long parallel clauses should be (also before the coordinating conjunction and!).
A is the best answer choice
I almost fell into the trap of "like" and "such as" but then found atleast one error in each of those answer choices except A. "when I looked at "have no more", it made me suspicious since it didnt make sense and drifted my thinking away from "like" and "such as". The only option left out was A.
ggurface
Joined: 09 Aug 2015
Last visit: 12 Jul 2020
Posts: 72
Schools: Schulich Jan '18 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 2.3
A cannot be correct. When the comparison towards the end and right after "no more than 20 percent from other sources", it is tremendously more logical for the following items to be examples of "other sources", than a comparison to the "the 80-20 rule for condos"
For A to be correct, it should go something like this:
Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule”, like the ground-floor rent rule for restaurants, required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and no more than 20 percent from other sources.
The part about "ground-floor rent rule for restauraunts" is simply too far away from the object that answer A incorrectly attempts to compare.
Once again, take every question that is not official GMAC material with a grain of salt. This does not appear to be a GMAT quality question.
For A to be correct, it should go something like this:
Until 2010, a state tax regulation known as the “80-20 rule”, like the ground-floor rent rule for restaurants, required that condominium associations receive at least 80 percent of their gross income from their tenant-shareholders, and no more than 20 percent from other sources.
The part about "ground-floor rent rule for restauraunts" is simply too far away from the object that answer A incorrectly attempts to compare.
Once again, take every question that is not official GMAC material with a grain of salt. This does not appear to be a GMAT quality question.
Moderators:
Announcements
How to Tell If Your GMAT Prep Resources Are Actually Helping You
Subscribe to GMAT Club for New Podcast Episodes, Debriefs, & Insightful Sessions on GMAT Preparation
Subscribe to GMAT Club for New Podcast Episodes, Debriefs, & Insightful Sessions on GMAT Preparation
Tuck at Dartmouth
AI at Dartmouth Tuck: How the School Is Preparing Leaders for the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Inside the courses, research, and hands-on learning defining wise, decisive leadership in an AI-driven world.
Read More
Inside the courses, research, and hands-on learning defining wise, decisive leadership in an AI-driven world.
Read More
Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos
Success stories and strategies from high-scoring candidates.