Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 May 2017, 21:24

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

When rates were raised in 1985, postal service officials

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Affiliations: Beta Gamma Sigma
Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Posts: 210
Schools: Harvard, Penn, Maryland
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 3

Show Tags

27 May 2009, 18:17
so if it said "it would not be necessary for further rate increases to occur," it would be fine? because the pronoun "it" was mentioned as ambiguous as well.

makes sense "for" has to be followed by a clause with a verb.
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 818
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

27 May 2009, 22:22
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
TheGMATChef wrote:
nightwing79 wrote:
When rates were raised in 1985, postal service officials predicted they would make further rate increases unnecessary for at least three years.

A. they would make further rate increases unnecessary

B. they would mean that further rate increases would not be needed

C. that it would not be necessary for further rate increases

D. that the increase would make further rate increases unnecessary

E. further rate increases will not be needed

Hi guys,
Very nice discussion indeed.
This question is somewhat testing your knowledge of English idioms. (C) is an attractive answer but it is idiomatically incorrect for this simple reason: "it is necessary for" must be followed by a person, a group of people, or some type of organization, not by an object or an abstraction.

Yes, (D) seems wordy but it is the correct answer. Adding "the increase" into the sentence does not make the sentence (I am stressing that point here) redundant but, rather, makes it clear.
Conciseness is the last thing you should worry about, as concise answers are always full of traps.
First and foremost, be grammatically correct and semantically clear.
The best sentence is not included in the answer choices as it would be evident to most of you and thus will not add any significant point value (as a reward) to the GMAT score of the more verbally inclined among you.

thanks..couldnt quite place my finger on why C was wrong
Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2009
Posts: 101
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

24 Oct 2009, 08:37
nightwing79 wrote:
When rates were raised in 1985, postal service officials predicted they would make further rate increases unnecessary for at least three years.

A. they would make further rate increases unnecessary

B. they would mean that further rate increases would not be needed

C. that it would not be necessary for further rate increases

D. that the increase would make further rate increases unnecessary

E. further rate increases will not be needed

A and B - They have no clear antecedent and that is required here
E - that is required here
C - distort the meaning because it refers to for further rate increase... whereas in the original one refer to the increase in 1985
D - redundant (increase twice); nevertheless, this is the best one
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10368
Followers: 997

Kudos [?]: 225 [0], given: 0

Re: When rates were raised in 1985, postal service officials [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Jun 2016, 22:34
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: When rates were raised in 1985, postal service officials   [#permalink] 28 Jun 2016, 22:34

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 24 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 The managers were asked to rate their depth 3 12 May 2017, 00:49
When rates were raised in 1985, postal service officials pre 1 28 Dec 2013, 02:53
1 National Park Service officials claim that ever escalating 4 29 Oct 2015, 09:54
4 When the votes were counted in 2005, Montana officials 7 13 May 2014, 11:13
52 State officials report that soaring rates of liability 24 23 May 2017, 18:13
Display posts from previous: Sort by