mail2jkd

Yes, A portion of capital is singular, but the sentence is expressed in a subjunctive mood, more specifically here, past subjunctive. In paste tense, first and third person singular, it takes the form I were, he/she/it were For ex. If I were rich, I would have opened my own management institute. - Past subjunctive that expresses a desire, but conveys that I am not rich. When I was rich in the 90's, I should have bought that piece of land. - I was rich in 90's, but didn't buy the land. It happened and true.

IMO A: It is the extremes of temperature and humidity that causes the damage, not the humidity. but the extremity is caused by humidity. I think A conveys the meaning the best.

IMO E. It is the King who led his troops, showed his military superiority and recently conquered the city. Also, the non-underlined part of the sentence is already in passive. Hence that were seems good enough. Thanks!

This is how I read it. Michael Pollan, in his best-selling book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, serving as yet another piece of evidence to support the thesis of a burgeoning interest in natural food among Americans, elucidates industrial farming, explains organic farming, and discusses hunting and gathering food for oneself. here the modifier is in his best-selling book The Omnivore’s Dilemma and serving comes after a comma with no clear reference to the book, say for example '[which/that] serves'. Michael Pollan could actually serve as an yet another piece of evidence, hence IMO, it seems wrong.

It is the book that serves as another piece of evidence, not Michael Pollan as indicated by D.

I chose wrong answer as well. I think the choice A goes by context and parallelism. Just as in 'Author elucidates [clarifies] X, explains Y...' I think B would be right, If the author intended to show contrast. For example, Michael elucidates the ill effects of industrial farming, by explaining organic farming and discussing hunting and gathering food for oneself Am I in the right train of thought here?

IMO E. I would go for By confronting and by improving for 2 separate logical actions. 1) confronts economy 2) improves public morale. Left with C, D, E

EF: Please clarify my doubt inked red. Thanks!

Initially I chose D as well. After reading through others explanation, It struck me that we are talking about only one Job, and 'He' is selected for the Job. Hence IMO B. Please let me know whether my interpretation is right?

Numbers available - 96 For a number to be divided by 8, there are 2 possibilities 1. n is even and one of three must be divided by 4 Here, there are 2 possibilities: a) n is a multiple of 2 and n+2 is a multiple of 4, so 96/4=24 possibilities. For ex, 2,3,4 b) n is a multiple of 4 and n+2 is a multiple of 2, so 96/4=24 possibilities. For ex, 4,5,6 2. n is odd and n+1 is 8. i.e 96/8=12 Hence the total no of possibilities is 24+24+12=60; (60/96)*100=62.5%

Abhasjha, So if I say, Ram learns juro-karate from Shyam so that he can acquire some new moves. Here, Since Ram is the subject, and the meaning conveys Ram is learning, can 'he' refers to Ram with certainty? Thanks for your time!

IMO C!

IMO A. The argument talks about the Government is the only one that has the resources. It also argues that no business or university want to be part of it if no mechanism exists for coordinating establishment of the network as a whole, but fails to explain how govt is going to achieve that. E - actually is already stated in the argument.

Because here the comparison is 'X might decrease while Y rises'

In addition to the great explanation from effective factor, 1. The rate [singular] rises. 2. The disease [singular] decreases, but the disease added with might becomes subjunctive [since the author writes about his prediction/opinion and not a fact], hence disease might decrease.

I think A believer in recycling is correct. IMO, the problem with C - sculptor Alexander Calder often made use for old pieces of junk in his art

I agree Project700Plus. I think the sentence is more clear than I originally thought. I am going to stick to my original pick E. What is OA?

I had the exact same doubt and was split between A & E. I can argue both ways. For A: As per GMAT rules, we should in no way change the meaning of the sentence if it is grammatically correct. It is possible for someone to attend so many meetings as a former chair. For E: The meaning makes more sense 'for 18 consecutive years and a board member for 28 years', while she served as a board member she achieved X. Anyone else feel the same way? Or am I analyzing too much?

I agree and disagree :rolleyes: I think both can be used interchangeably. But there is subtle difference. speak to is used more for admonitory one sided conversations. When your boss says, I will speak to him about this incident. The boss here conveys that he has a upper hand in the conversation he is going to have. speak with conveys a dialogue process. Geitner to speak with Banking executives about the stimulus package. Are you sure? I am wary of such generalizations. Thanks! PS: Thanks to google!

Such as makes milk an example for food allergy, where as correct meaning should convey allergies such as to milk.

Mitzi explained it beautifully. Just to add, both the singular Noun + 's and plural noun + s' make the sentence possessive. At times, the plural noun + s' could come in a elusive manner in a sentence.

The Ans IMO is E. Both 'Unlimited' and 'Seeming' are adjectives, hence an adverb 'Seemingly' to modify the adjective 'Unlimited' would be apt.

Erin, Is it possible for you mandate the GMAT posters to reveal the source before posting. There is always that one guy who could spoil for the rest of us. I am here to learn from the best of minds as I know for me, it is a continuous process and never believed in shortcuts. But when I read this kinda news, to be honest I am bit scared to even participate in the forums. Is it wrong to answer a question without knowing the source. Please clarify. What is one's liability here while just answering questions? I appreciate your time. Thanks! J

Choose B. Here is my reasons! D is completely out of scope that the argument has nothing to do with 'City administrators either by few or by many' - CR always what is said in the argument matter more than the personal interpretations. From B, it is clear that there is more room for budget cut as we have more money currently going for non-essential services.

Yes. It is between D and E. Agree on D! What is the given OA? E would affect the 'great ridership' the company hoping to continue. So that should have been valid assumption. However, the argument doesn't talk about the difficulty level of operating the new buses compared to the old buses. Thanks!