kranti_surya

The Vietnamese artist exhibiting work in the United State reported that one of her artistic challenges had been the former widespread unavailability of paper and canvas in wartime, which she said often forced to work on matchboxes and scraps of newsprint. her artistic challenges had been the former her artistic challenges had been the formerly her artistic challenges is the former their artistic challenges is the former their artistic challenges had been the former -> I am confused between A and B, could someone please explain whether the adjective "former" should be used or adverb "formerly" should be used, and why?

Is E justified? Shouldn't "Each" be followed by a singular verb - "broadcasts" rather than by a plural verb - "broadcast" ?

Kindly do the needful. ESSAY QUESTION: “People should be strictly prohibited from using their cellular phones in public places where their conversations could disturb others: on the bus, at a restaurant, or in a museum.” From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading. My RESPONSE: The issue of prohibiting cellular phones in public places is interesting and debatable. On one hand, some people argue that cellular phones should be allowed everywhere since the purpose of cellular phones is to be reachable and be connected with family and friends all the time. On the other hand, some people argue that usage of cellular phones at public phones causes disturbance to the public and hence should be strictly prohibited. After careful examination, I tend to agree that the usage of cellular phones should be prohibited in public places when it can cause disturbance to public. One reason I agree is because people tend to over-use cellular phones in public places and hence disturb the peace of the others. For example, couple of days back when I was in a restaurant, a customer got a call on his cell phone, the customer answer the call and continued the conversation on the phone for 20 minutes, it didn't appear that the conversation was an emergency. This disturbed me and other customers who went to the restaurant to have a peaceful dinner. Another reason is because in places like buses and taxis, if a person is on a conversation over cell phone, then it can disturb the concentration of the driver. This could lead to serious accidents and hence dangerous for lives of the passengers and the driver. For all the above reasons, I agree that people should be prohibited from using cellular phones in public places. However, I do agree that people should be allowed to use their cellular phones when it is an emergency. An issue of this kind can not be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. However, I believe that in the long run, the view I have expressed will be more acceptable.

AWA ESSAYS: Analyze Argument Please rate my essay and suggest any changes or corrections ESSAY QUESTION: The following appeared in a science magazine: “The “Space Race” of the 1960’s between the USA and Russia was very expensive but it yielded a tremendous number of technological advances. These advances have provided many economic and humanitarian benefits. The benefits have more than paid for the effort and money spent during the Space Race and therefore the government should make allowances within the budget to pay for a manned Mars landing by 2020.” MY RESPONSE: The argument concludes that the government should make allowances for landing Man on Mars by 2020. The author of the argument supports the claim by stating that benefits of "Space Race" have paid off the money and effort spent. There are several reasons to argue that the argument is unconvincing and flawed. Not only the conclusion is poorly drawn but also the evidence is fragmentary. First of all, the conclusion is unjustified. Argument does not provide any information about the possible benefits of a manned mars landing. When no justifiable benefits are foreseen, then it may not be a very good idea to spend the money and effort on such missions. Secondly, author does not provide any statistical data to support the claim that technological advances of "Space Race" have provided economic and humanitarian benefits. It could be possible that such benefits could have been achieved by other less expensive missions. Thirdly, author does not provide any justification to his claim that benefits of "Space Race" have paid for the effort and money spent. In conclusion, the argument is a result of huge speculation and a deliberate attempt of exaggeration. The claims made are not well supported.

I agree that PKVV's method of solving is more accurate, but it is complicated. I think simpler way is to try with numbers, - try with 9 and 16, this eliminates III - try with 36 and 64, this eliminates I

B A C D. Shortlisted A and C for the 3rd one, but C wins because the passage does say that it is a hypothesis.

C. When a modifier sentence involves verb in "ing" form, word following the comma should be the Subject.

A. Not D, because GMAT uses "Whose" for mostly people and may be animals

It is C. Because argument states that Mold (poisoning) can be avoided by avoiding leakages. "If one wishes to avoid mold poisoning, then, one should make sure to keep all internal plumbing in good condition to prevent leakage that could serve as a breeding ground for mold"

Using Denial Test we can arriving at answer C. By denying the options can the argument be destroyed. If the advertisers indeed have any objections they will not advertise in the magazine, and this destroys our argument.

D & E are both parallel. D has the correct verb tenses. E incorrectly uses the "-ing" form when the statement has verbs "was", "built" which state past.