divineacclivity

III can't be right because even if people out of work is the group getting harmed, "government reservoir" is certainly NOT the "benefiting group whose livelihood depends on farming". So, I think A. Experts, please explain why or why not. thanks in advance.

Experts, Could you please explain why's B correct? B: If Proposition 13 is repealed, every homeowner is likely to experience a substantial increase in property taxes. With Proposition 13. a 75,000 flat (11 years ago) --> $914 tax a 200,000 flat (now) --> $2000 Option B is too specific to be correct for the argument. Option B says "every" homeowner whereas the argument says specifically about houses worth 75k & 2L. Even if the argument isn't talking specifically about these numbers, there'd still be a chance of house-owners with different ratio/kind of combinations e.g. 75k & 75k or 75k & 80k etc. on which the preposition 13 wouldn't apply atall. e.g. "every house-owner" would include a farm-house owner who doesn't have a neighbour, maybe. So, going by the above logic, I rejected option B and chose option E since argument mentions: 1. 1 percent of $75,000 increased by 2 percent each year for 11 years 2. 1 percent of $200,000 In the second case, the increment of 2% isn't specifically mentioned, so, second case benefits more. Even though option E requires a bit of assumptions too but it is far better than option B because "every" house-owner would fall prey to many specific cases. Please explain. Thanks in advance.

I preferred E over C for the following reasons: E says that the quality measures are NOT universally accepted but author doesn't talk about the sales of Regent's computers in an international market. Maybe, the quality measures are accepted in the potential market of the R computers. So, E isn't a strong -ve or weakener, so, this sounded the best of the lot. C says the R computers can be used in conjunction with higher-priced computers of other companies (sounds like they can't be used without other company's computers) => their low prices doesn't mean these computer would effectively cost low to its buyer since the buyer would have to buy other company's computers too to make these work as they work in conjunction with others. => it defies "low-priced alternative" => strongly weakens the argument Experts, please explain in detail where my reasons are flawed.

Expertssssss! Please please help resolve the confusion. If the concentration of histidine declines on maturity, that should mean that the plant starts to die whereas the agrument doesnt say so atall. My logic for picking up option D was: Since histidine makes the metal inert, so, once this particular herb is cultivated in the soil rich in toxic metal, the herb would turn the metal in soil inert making it fit for cultivation of other plants. So, I picked option D. Please tell me the flaw in my reasoning. thanks in advance.

That perfectly answers my question. Thank you very much.

Why not E because the load of the commercial trucks could be carried on the railway easily whereas the daily commuters might be particular about travelling through the road because there might be a connectivity issue or things like those from the railway stations to their work place or to wherever they commute daily

What's the difference in the meanings the following sentences: She claims that her dog is the best She claims her dog to be the best Aren't both correct? I know the first one is very clear and it does sound perfect to the ears but is the second one totally wrong? Does the second one not mean the same as the first sentence? If yes, what does it mean then? thanks.

That helps. One doubt: Had E option been "or anything synthesized", would E be better than D (= or anything that has been synthesized) for concision? thanks

hey thanks. I just see one problem with D; please help me understand why it is not true, if atall. A pen is for writing - CORRECT I picked up the pen (in order) to write - CORRECT I picked up the pen for writing - INCORRECT for - specifies the purpose of an object and "in order to" specifies purpose of an action. So, D choice also uses ".. for not anticipating the impact .." - wouldn't this be wrong? If not, are my above examples wrong? If they are, pls explain why. Thank you. ~ Divine

Hi, I still can NOT understand why "to be married to" is wrong. The King sought to have his marriage annulled to be married to A.B. - why is this wrong. Doesn't it mean the same as the following sentence: The King sought to have his marriage annulled to get married to A.B. Is this sentence correct/better than the one above (to be married one)? Thanks.

----------------- Problem ----------------------------------------------- Baseball, the only major professioal sport during the Great Depression, was as present as the weather, and as much discussed A. same as the original one B. present like the weather was, and it was also discussed as much C. as present and was discussed as the weather was D. so present as to be discussed like the weaher E. presend and dicussed as often as the weather was ------------------------------------------------------------------------- The right option as given in Prinston is option A. I have confusion between A and E options here & I kinda like the E option better. Please tell me why I should not prefer E over A? My thoughts about the options here: A. -> "a sport as present as weather" -- I'm not sure if presence of wheather and game can be compared like this B. -> Wrong | "like the weather was" - "as" sounds more appropriate instead of "like" here C. -> Wrong | "was" i unnecessary before discussed D. -> Wrong | "as to be" - wrong E. -> this sound most appropriate of the options above. it says that the sport was present and it was discussed as often as the weather was Please explain why one should choose option A over option E. Thank you! ~ DA

For the underlined portion of the sentence below, 4 choices are given to choose from in an example given in official guide for GMAT: In late 1997, the chambers inside the pyramid of the Pharaoh Menakaure at Giza were closed to visitors for cleaning and repair due to moisture exhaled by tourists, which raised its humidity to such levels so that salt from the stone was crystalizing and fungus was growing on the walls. (a) Same as underlined (b) Some other unclear and wrong phrase © because tourists were exhaling moisture, which has raised the humidity within them to levels such that salt from the stone would crystalize (d) because of moisture that was exhaled by tourists raising the humidity within them to levels so high as to make the salt from the stone crystalize (e) because moisture exhaled by tourists has raised the humidity within them to such levels that salt from the stone was crystalizing My query: The explanation given in the official guide for GMAT says that in choices © and (d), the pronoun “them” seems to be referring to “tourists” whereas in choice (e), the pronoun “them” correctly refers to chambers. I’m not able to clearly see how “them” in © & (d) choices refers to tourists but not in choice (e). Could someone please elaborate? Thank you!

"I also do sketching." Which of the following does it mean: 1. Someone does sketching and so do I 2. I do sketching and something else too "I do sketching also" --> does it very clearly convey the second amongst the above two sentences Could you please suggest a link or something that can give me a fair idea on the difference between the usage of the two: also, too I also want to know if GMAT could base right or wrong on this confusing topic? Thank you in advance!

Wrong: I have seen the film and she also has. Right: I have seen the film and she has too. Right: I have seen the film and so has she. Barron (a GMat preperation book) states the above. I've always used the first sentence more frequently than the 2nd. Is it wrong? If yes, why? Thanks in advance!

Right: This model explains all known subatomic particles, some of which were only recently discovered. Right: This model explains all known subatomic particles, some of them only recently discovered. Wrong: This model explains all known subatomic particles, of which some were only recently discovered. The book (Manhattan) says the third one in the above sentences is incorrect without really explaining why for a change. Why is the usage of "which" in the third sentence above not correct? Thank you! P.S.: I'm not sure how I could edit the subject. I typed modifire instead of modifier

Example from Manhattan: Unparallel usage: He received a medal for sinking an enemy ship and the capture of its crew Correct: He received a medal for the sinking of an enemy ship and the capture of its crew Reason: the sinking of an enemy ship is a complex gerund phrase the capture of its crew is a noun phrase The original sentence was incorrect because it attempted to put a simple gerund phrase (sinking an enemy ship) in parallel with an action noun phrase My query: Would the following be correct? He received a medal for sinking an enemy ship and the capturing its crew [here both are simple gerund phrases]

Example from Manhattan book: Wrong: Stacy would have gone to the party if she knew about it Correct: Stacy would have gone to the party if she had known about it Manhattan says: The phrase if she knew about it is wrong because it conveys the meaning that perhaps Stacy DID know about the party. My query: How come the phrase "if she knew about it" convey that she probably did know about the party? even though i'd agree the second sentence sounds better but I'm really not able to connect to the reasoning behind it. Please help me understand it better. Thank you!

Got it, thank you, Brent!

Manhattan says the following are correct: correct: Apples are more healthy to eat than caramels. wrong: Ardian runs quicker than Jacob. correct: Adrian runs more quickly than Jacob. correct: Ardian runs faster than Jacob. Is this also correct? If not, why? Apples are healthier to eat than caramels. Thank you!

Example taken from Manhattan: Wrong: Regina returned the dress to the store, which was torn at one of the seams. Right: Regina returned the dress, which was torn at one of the seams, to the store. My query: In the corrected sentence, ", which was torn .." makes it sound like a non-essential modifier where as it should be an essential one because Regina might have brought 2 dresses home from the store out of which she returned the one that was torn and kept the good one with herself. so, accoding to me, the corrected one shd be: Regina returned the dress that was torn at one of the seams, to the store. Is my understanding on this right? thankyou.

Example taken from Manhattan: Incorrect sentence: Mary buys cookies made with SugarFree, an artificial sweetener, which tastes as sweet as the corn soup that her brother loves but where there are fewer calories than does an equivalent amount of corn soup. Corrected sentence: Mary buys cookies made with SugarFree, an artificial sweetner, which tastes as sweet as the corn soup that her brother loves but which contains fewer calories than does an equivalent amount of corn soup. My Query: Here, in the corrected sentence above, isn't "which tastes as sweet as the corn .." modifying "sweetner" instead of modifying SugarFree, which it (the adjective) is actually meant to be modifying - the SugarFree and not a sweetner? 1. So, isnt the sentence still wrong? 2. Isn't the following better than the corrected sentence above: "Mary buys cookies made with an artificial sweetner, SugarFree, which tastes as sweet as the corn soup that her brother loves but which contains fewer calories than does an equivalent amount of corn soup." One more query that i have is: What do we do if we have a noun that is to be modified by multiple modifiers, like in the following sentence: I need a wife who is educated, who is affectionate, who can do all the household jobs and who keeps the whole family united. Thankyou.

Hi, Amy is feeling good [good is an adjective] Amy writes well [well is an adverb] Amy is doing good [WHAT IS "GOOD" in this sentence - adjective or adverb and WHY???] the first two senteces are taken from manhattan. thanks in advance

Example taken from Manhattan: Wrong: "We were dismayed to learn that our neighbours were untidey, disagreeable, and they were uninterested to make new friends" Correct: "We were dismayed to learn that our neighbours were untidey, disagreeable, and uninterested in making new friends" Question: Is this also correct: " "We were dismayed to learn that our neighbours were untidey, disagreeable, and they were uninterested to make new friends""

Manhattan says the following are correct: S-1: They wanted TO increase awareness, spark interest and motivate purchases. S-2: I want to retire to a place WHERE I can relax and WHERE the taxes are low. S-3: She argues that the agency acts WITH reckless abandon and WITH disregard for human life and property.. Question 1: Why is "TO" not repeated in S-1 whereas "WHERE" in S-2 is and similarly, "WITH" in S-3 is? Why different rules for "TO" alone? Question 2: Why is following not correct: She argues that the agency acts WITH reckless abandon and disregard for human life ...

a wordy sentence: A bottle of red wine was order by Grant, even though Marie had had the expectation that he would be placing an order for a bottle of white wine" Manhattan says, this one is concise: "Grant ordered a bottle of red wine, even though Marie had expected him to order a bottle of white wine" Isnt the following one correct and concise? If not, why? "Grant ordered a bottle of red wine though Marie had expected a bottle of white wine" thanks in advance DA