fighteress Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 Records of the first 736 British convicts deported to Australia reveal convictions for crimes against property in all cases and they ranged from highway robbery to forgery. http://kaplan.blackboard.com/images/spacer.gif convictions for crimes against property in all cases and they ranged convictions in all cases were for crimes against property and ranging the ranging of convictions for crimes against property in all cases that all were convicted of crimes against property ranging that all of them had convictions for crimes that were against property; the range was Hi, can someone explain why the answer (D) is correct? It would seem to me that "ranging" is incorrectly modifying property rather than crimes, as should be the case. This leads to my overall problem with SC questions. Many times I will see more than one mistake, but I end up picking the answer that has the less of 2 evils, which is very frustrating. What exactly is the priority list of grammar violations that ETS is using? Fighteress Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fighteress Posted January 16, 2005 Author Share Posted January 16, 2005 oops....sorry about the formatting of the question....here it is again... Records of the first 736 British convicts deported to Australia reveal convictions for crimes against property in all cases and they ranged from highway robbery to forgery. A. convictions for crimes against property in all cases and they ranged B. convictions in all cases were for crimes against property and ranging C. the ranging of convictions for crimes against property in all cases D. that all were convicted of crimes against property ranging E. that all of them had convictions for crimes that were against property; the range was Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
me19708 Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 oops....sorry about the formatting of the question....here it is again... Records of the first 736 British convicts deported to Australia reveal convictions for crimes against property in all cases and they ranged from highway robbery to forgery. A. convictions for crimes against property in all cases and they ranged B. convictions in all cases were for crimes against property and ranging C. the ranging of convictions for crimes against property in all cases D. that all were convicted of crimes against property ranging E. that all of them had convictions for crimes that were against property; the range was is it D? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobileindiguy Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 A: The reference to "They" is not clear. It seems that "They" refers to "convicts". Hence incorrect B: use of "and" is not correct. C: reveal the ranging - does not make sense D: reveal that - idiom is ok. Reference to All is clear. It is the crime ranging from highway robbery to forgery. It looks fine. E: use of semicolon implies two independent clauses. However, in the second sentence, the meaning is not clear. “The range of what”. Hence, the correct answer "D". :) HTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amitraj Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 Records of the first 736 British convicts deported to Australia reveal convictions for crimes against property in all cases and they ranged from highway robbery to forgery. A. convictions for crimes against property in all cases and they ranged - [they - confusing] B. convictions in all cases were for crimes against property and ranging [and is not needed...ranging is giving details about property. It is cannot be separated using a conjunction] C. the ranging of convictions for crimes against property in all cases [does not make sense "the ranging"] D. that all were convicted of crimes against property ranging [correct, uses that correctly and then ranging is linked to property ] E. that all of them had convictions for crimes that were against property; the range was [wordy, not concise] fighteress, it is describing crimes related to property like forgery. They were not murders, kidnappings, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geeky Posted January 16, 2005 Share Posted January 16, 2005 amitraj-- in D) ranging is not modifying property as you suggest--its modifying crimes i think thats what fighteress implies when saying-- one aspects at the cost of other however -- out of D and E -- i eliminate E upfront due to same reasons and that leaves me with D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amitraj Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 I understand fighteress point but I was breaking up Crimes of type property. If you think that crimes can be demarcated into various sub-sections and one of them is property then it simplifies things. Examples of these would be highway robbery to forgery. I think people who are not aware of the way Insurance works in US will have difficulty understanding that Property can be a type of crime. Under Property Insurance in the US, a person is covered for defamation, theft and other liabilities too. [i think forgery will also be included but I am not an insurance expert ;)] The confusion is resolved as soon as we understand that Property is a section under crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunilbhat Posted January 17, 2005 Share Posted January 17, 2005 property or crimes. But in overall context of the question it is modifying crimes. You cannot have property ranging from highway robbery to forgery Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.