| Author |
Message |
|
RonPurewal
|
Post subject: Re: The three women, liberal activists who strongly  Posted: Thu Dec 29, 2011 1:19 pm |
|
 |
| ManhattanGMAT Staff |
|
|
Posts: 7146
|
thanghnvn wrote: "unqualified" mean not good enough. that's a different meaning of "unqualified" (as in "James is unqualified for the job"). it doesn't apply here. here, "qualified" means "with some sort of restrictions/reservations". for instance: I will support you, but only if you do some favors for me in return --> this is a QUALIFIED declaration of support; it is qualified by the requirement of favors in return. I will support you no matter what you do --> this is an UNQUALIFIED declaration of support.
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
thanghnvn
|
Post subject: Re: The three women, liberal activists who strongly Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 3:47 am |
|
|
| Forum Guests |
|
|
Posts: 206
|
|
Thank you Ron,
pls, help
in D and E, "support by labor" is wrong or not and why.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chandrahasreddy
|
Post subject: Re: The three women, liberal activists who strongly Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:36 pm |
|
|
| Students |
|
|
Posts: 5
|
RonPurewal wrote: --
once, just once, i'd like to see a sentence about people dedicated to a conservative cause.
just once.
i think i'm going to have to wait a very long time. Ron, This quote amused me. :) Do you mean you rarely see from GMAT or from posters in the forum? PS: I know that you made the quote on a lighter note(with hint of sarcasm).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tim
|
Post subject: Re: The three women, liberal activists who strongly Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 11:50 pm |
|
|
| ManhattanGMAT Staff |
|
|
Posts: 2242
Location: Southwest Airlines, seat 21C
|
|
you can have "the support of [something]" or "support from [something]", but "support by [something]" is an incorrect idiom..
_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
srjayanthi
|
Post subject: Re: The three women, liberal activists who strongly Posted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 3:18 pm |
|
|
| Course Students |
|
|
Posts: 7
|
|
"Unqualifying" means something that doesn't meet a certain standard.
"Unqualified" means with no restrictions or reservations. It means that the women received very good support.
-SJ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tim
|
Post subject: Re: The three women, liberal activists who strongly Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2012 2:09 am |
|
|
| ManhattanGMAT Staff |
|
|
Posts: 2242
Location: Southwest Airlines, seat 21C
|
|
thanks!
_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
thanghnvn
|
Post subject: Re: The three women, liberal activists who strongly Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:24 am |
|
|
| Forum Guests |
|
|
Posts: 206
|
tim wrote: you can have "the support of [something]" or "support from [something]", but "support by [something]" is an incorrect idiom.. Thank You very much, Tim. Normally, NOUN BY NOUN is wrong. and TO BE DONE BY SOMEONE/SOMETHING is right. I never see NOUN BY NOUN. Is that right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RonPurewal
|
Post subject: Re: The three women, liberal activists who strongly Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:19 am |
|
|
| ManhattanGMAT Staff |
|
|
Posts: 7146
|
thanghnvn wrote: tim wrote: you can have "the support of [something]" or "support from [something]", but "support by [something]" is an incorrect idiom.. Thank You very much, Tim. Normally, NOUN BY NOUN is wrong. and TO BE DONE BY SOMEONE/SOMETHING is right. I never see NOUN BY NOUN. Is that right? no. this sort of thing is idiomatic -- case by case. fortunately, the chance that it will ever be tested on the gmat is close to nil. you can have death by suffocation; your web page can contain remarks by an editor; just to name a couple that come to mind. in general, trying to memorize random patterns like these is not going to get you anywhere on this exam. you should concentrate instead on concepts, such as parallelism and agreement, that can manifest in many different forms and are frequently tested.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
elibloshtein
|
Post subject: Re: The three women, liberal activists who strongly Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 7:33 pm |
|
|
| Course Students |
|
|
Posts: 1
|
|
I don't understand why this was tested. This is essentially a vocabulary question, and I've never seen vocabulary tested on the GMAT before.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
thanghnvn
|
Post subject: Re: The three women, liberal activists who strongly Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 7:28 am |
|
|
| Forum Guests |
|
|
Posts: 206
|
|
The clear reason for D and E to be wrong is that "consistently" is used without any problem in the original choice and should be kept. we only can change something in the original choice if that thing is wrong. This is a hard rule and the rule of gmat thinking. This rule is never declared in OG books and so makes the SC problems like this SC problem harder.
Is my thinking correct? experts, member pls, comment.
if my idea is correct. Can I make a slogan.
WE ONLY CAN CHANGE SOMETHING IN THE ORIGINAL CHOICE IF THAT THING IS INCORRECT/ILLOGIC.
Pls, comment, Thank you.
why I want to make a slogan? to make it easy to remember.
The problem with me is that I can understand the explanation immediately but I still can not perform on some SC problems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RonPurewal
|
Post subject: Re: The three women, liberal activists who strongly Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 4:03 am |
|
|
| ManhattanGMAT Staff |
|
|
Posts: 7146
|
thanghnvn wrote: we only can change something in the original choice if that thing is wrong. i don't see where you're going with this. why would you want to change something if it's not wrong in the first place?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
