jamesbond007

This is simple one, nfalco. "Who" is used as Subjective Pronoun and "Whom" is used as Objective pronoun. As a ready check in such sentences, simply substitute the personal pronoun “he/him” or “she/her” for “who/whom.” If he or she would be the correct form, the proper choice is who.” If “him” or “her” would be correct, use “whom.” This technique of substituting a personal pronoun for the relative pronoun works nicely whenever you have difficulty deciding whether to use “who” or “whom,” assuming that you have no difficulty using the proper form of personal pronouns. In above sentence, correct answer must be E. It correctly uses WHOM as well as parallel construction BOTH IN. I hope it is clear.

Hi LadyP, These are simple ones. You must have read these sentences in which a simple form of verb was followed by THAT. By simple form of verb, I mean that a verb without infinitive. For ex. To Go is an infinitive verb and Go is simple form of verb. Such sentences, as you might be knowing, are called as Subjunctive Mood of Verb. In such sentences, certain verbs always take "That + simple form of verb" structure. There are m any verbs that require this perticular structure and Directive and Order are among this list of verb. Hence Always use THAT after these perticular verbs. I hope it helps.

The example that blueMartini has given is little different then what is inteded in sentence. "For eg. correct usage is he runs faster than most of his classmates do." In this example, we must use parallel phrases/clauses on both the sides of THAN for correct comparition. But sentence do no use THAN for comparison. "the site of an ancient civilization that flourished at the same time as the civilizations in the Nile delta and " this sentence is same as following example, "I reached home at the same time as you." This is an elliptical sentence and has the same meaning as "I reached home at the same time as you reached." or "I reached home at the same time as you did." The option A uses such ellipse correctly. Other options are gramatically wrong.

A has a problem of wrong adjective ' recently'. "Recently" is an adverb and must be used to modify some verb. Here it is used to modify "Attacks", which is noun. Hence "many attacks recently" is the wrong construction. B seems grammatically corect. The construction "has recently been attacked as " uses "recently" as an adverb to the verb "attacked". and the option B also carries the same meaning that the test is under revision status. (Neighter the revision has finished nor yet to start) In option C, "for receiving much recent attack as" is awkward construction. It is trying to say that the revision is due to most recent attack. But original sentence states that there were many attacks happened recently and because of which the revision of test is started. Also the use of MUCH RECENT is not correct. In option D, tense of sentence is totally changed. It says that revision is completed. But actually, revision is under construction. In option E, "To be Revised" says that revision is yet to start. Meaning changes. IMO, option B seems to correct. BTW, what is correct option??

One more question. Apart from "Attempt TO" idiom, this question has one more area of error. BEGUN is a past participle of Begin. Begin - Began - Begun We cannot use Begun without any supportive verb, can we? It must be followed by has, have or had, right? A, B, C and D all uses Begun, without any supportive verb (form of "To be") ... E is using it correctly with HAS. What do you say, guys??

"Aid IN Something" -- Correct Idiom "Aid TO Do something" -- Wrong Idiom

My opinion, Answer is E. A has a problem of misplaced modifier "begun almost two decades ago" .. What was began?? An attempt or Amendment? Not clear.. so A is not correct.. "Attempt .. to.." is correct idiom. Option E correctly uses this idiom and also corrects the problem of dangling modifier. BTW, what is OA?

penfriend's logic is perfect. In Option A, "their tires" is the biggest mistake. It means the tyres of owners... B has no error as such. Moreover, the cause of friction - underinfletion - is correctly and clearly described in option B. in A, it is not so clear. hence B is correct answer.

C is wrong, because of "Equal to Those". Does it reflect the Number of people?? Even if it reflects the Number, it can't be exactly EQUAL to those visited. it may be approximately equal to. So E is perfect choice which says "as many as", which means approximately euqal in number. My choice is E. OA please...

The answer must be B. Here options A, C and D incorrectlly uses WHICH. We in GMAT use WHICH as Non-restrictive clause, to give extra, unimportant information about any Noun. But the Underline part has relevant meaning to sentence. B and D correct this mistake but in D, "Of Claims Depart" is wrong. It should be "In Claims Dept." What is OA?

The Given sentence is correct because it is in Subjunctive Mood. "Requires ... That" is correct idiom and it always uses Subjunctive verb "Be" (simple form of verb without infinitive). Hence A is correct.

We do not use IT to refer persons, instead we use He/She. White House Counsel must be referred by He/She, if at all wanted to refer. "IT" is the pronoun use to refer non-living things or animals. Hence 'IT' in the above system is clearly referring to The Recording system. Hope it clears.

In this question, more than idiom "Not Only... But Also", the Pronoun error is more pronounced. The Pronoun THEM must clearly and unambiguiously refer to single antacedent. Here two nouns "Customers" and "Companies" are the antacedent of pronoun THEM. So to whom THEM is referring? This must be clear. Only Option C uses most clear replacement for THEM (These Companies), hence it is correct.

Which and That, both are used to provide some (Essential or Extra/non-essential) information to a reader. But there is a difference in terms of Restrictive Clause and Non-Restrictive Clause. Lets see them in detail: A restrictive clause provides information that is pertinent or essential to the meaning of the sentence. A non-restrictive clause, also called a parenthetical or an appositive, contains information that is extra. Information contained in a non-restrictive clause may be removed from the sentence altogether without changing the overall meaning of the sentence. Because this information is not crucial to the meaning of a sentence, it is set apart with commas, or, more emphatically, with dashes, or parentheses. Both kinds of clauses can be signaled by the use of 'wh' word (which, when, where, and who). 'That' is used to signal a restrictive clause. Because a restrictive clause contributes to the basic meaning of the sentence, it is not separated from the rest of the sentence with commas or other surrounding punctuation. The meaning of a sentence can be altered by whether a clause is punctuated so as to show that it is a restrictive clause (giving crucial information) or a non-restrictive clause (giving extra information). A summary table follows. Restrictive Non-Restrictive (appositive/parenthetical) a. begins with wh words or that a. may begin with wh words b. presents highly relevant information b. gives "extra" information c. is not separated from the sentence c. is separated by commas, dashes, or parentheses Examples of non-restrictive clauses: Emily Brontë’s novel Wuthering Heights, which I read in my Victorian novels class this semester, is a classic. We know that these are non-restrictive clauses because the subjects’ names are given; therefore the 'wh' clauses are just giving extra information so it is appropriate that these clauses be set off by commas. Non-restrictive clauses are enclosed with commas. Examples of restrictive clauses: (THAT) The on-screen kiss that I like the best is the one at the end of the movie Clueless. We know that these are restrictive clauses partly because they are not set aside by commas, but also because we need the information to know what is being talked about. Do not use commas with a restrictive clause. I hope it helps.. Bond... Jamesbond - 007

No, this should not be the case. We want to find the 2 boys and one girl. How does the order matters here? Two boys, whether they are 1st and 2nd or 1st and 3rd or 2nd and 3rd, it really doesn't matter. Finally we want only two boys out of 3 children. Hence we should not consider the order of Boy and Girl here. I hope you agree now. JamesBond