Source: GMAT Prep

The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in favor of civil rights and environmental protection, have consistently received labor's unqualifying support.

a. same
b. are consistetly receiving the unqualifying support of labor
c. have consistently received the unqualified support of labor
d. receive consistent and unqualified support by labor
e. are receiving consistent and unqualified support by labor

oa: c

I was able to eliminate D and E as these choices change the intended meaning (the use of "consistent").
Among A, B and C, I guess the correct answer is the only one with "unqualified" vs. "unqualifying". But, looking at the verb tense, I crossed out A and C since they use present perfect tense. Isn't present tense preferred to present perfect tense??? Why is C wrong?

The three women, liberal activists who strongly support legislation in favor of civil rights and environmental protection, have consistently received labor's unqualifying support.

a. same
b. are consistetly receiving the unqualifying support of labor
c. have consistently received the unqualified support of labor
d. receive consistent and unqualified support by labor
e. are receiving consistent and unqualified support by labor

oa: c

i would have eliminated everything but (b) and (c) because you can only receive the support FROM something or OF something. You cant receive the support BY something. Although, you can BE supported by something.

at this point I play it by ear and (b) just doesn't sound right to me. I've never heard of someone receiving "unqualifying support". But I'm also not an expert in the English language so that reasoning doesn't mean much.

a is out because 'ing' cannot come after possessive form of noun
out of b and c, c looks better as b uses the 'ing' form
so i agree with oa

not true.
there are plenty of constructions in which that's ok. example: he took annette's growling dog out for a walk.
no problem there.

the issue here is just that "labor's unqualifying support" is just ridiculously awkward. this is one of those things that native speakers will understand almost instinctively, but that is nevertheless nearly impossible to explain to non-natives.

in general, i'm loath to use apostrophe + "s" for anything but humans, animals, and the like. this is definitely NOT a hard and fast rule, but i've noticed that it's fairly consistent across most usage.
thus, "an ape's vocal tract" is preferred to "the vocal tract of an ape", but "the colors of the mural" is better than "the mural's colors".

in general, if you get to pick between the apostrophe+s construction and the "of" construction, and the possessor isn't a living thing, i'd go with the latter.
but by all means try to eliminate based on other things first.

the REAL issue, though, is "unqualifying" -- this is incorrect.
"unqualifying" means "not meeting some sort of standard for qualification".
the intended meaning here is "unqualified", which means "without any sort of restriction or reservation".

--

the past perfect makes perfect (heh) sense here. the idea is that, lately, the women have been receiving support from labor.
the present participial form "are receiving" would also make sense, but remember that you aren't supposed to change the meaning of the sentence without a good reason for doing so.

--

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.

in general, i'm loath to use apostrophe + "s" for anything but humans, animals, and the like. this is definitely NOT a hard and fast rule, but i've noticed that it's fairly consistent across most usage.
thus, "an ape's vocal tract" is preferred to "the vocal tract of an ape", but "the colors of the mural" is better than "the mural's colors".

in general, if you get to pick between the apostrophe+s construction and the "of" construction, and the possessor isn't a living thing, i'd go with the latter.
but by all means try to eliminate based on other things first.


I just used this rule to pick up A, but "Labor" is not a living thing?

Correct, "labor" is not a living thing. The term here refers to the working class or unionized sector of the economy.

I'm surprised no one else picked up on this, but to my knowledge unqualifying is not even a word. Unqualified, on the other had, is.

yeah, i think you're right. nicely done.

That is not true.
Check this:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unqualifying

a. have consistently received labor's unqualifying support
c. have consistently received the unqualified support of labor

Gerund takes noun / pronoun in possessive case but "unqualifying" is used as a modifier (present participle).

"unqualifying / unqualified" is a modifier, which modifies to "support".

A is wrong because of two reasons.
When I read whole sentence, present participle does not fit.
"labor's unqualifying" is wrong because "unqualifying" is not gerund here.

B is correct because
"unqualified" is correctly used a adjective in "the unqualified support of labor".

Please correct me if .....

akhp77, you cite that rule with such authority that I'm reluctant to correct you, but I believe that you misunderstood the relationship between gerunds and possessives.

There is a rule that a gerund preceded by a noun/pronoun should be preceded by a possessive noun/pronoun:

YES: My dancing has improved.
NO: Me dancing has improved.
NO: I dancing has improved.

There is no requirement, though, that any -ing word that follows a possessive must be a gerund. Did you read Ron's contribution to the thread? It included this example that gives an exception to the rules as you (mis)understood it. Here it is, "He took Annette's growling dog out for a walk."

By the way, to my knowledge the correct rule has never been tested on the GMAT. It looks like a TOEFL sort of consideration.

Hi Ron,
I know there's a little change of focus about "what is consistent" in D, but is there any fatal problem in this choice?

you said"past perfect makes perfect " in your first post of this thread, it's a typo, huh? you meant to say "present perfect" right?

I know there's a change of tense in choice D from present perfect to simple present and I get that "don't change tense unless there's a good reason", but I cannot clearly tell the difference of meaning of this sentence if we change present perfect to simple present, could you explain more about it?

Thank you for very much!

Hi Ron,

this question seems being missed out. Could you take a look at it?

Thank you!

there's no such thing as "x received something BY y"; it would have to be "x received something FROM y".

"unqualifying" means making someone unqualified

"unqualified" mean not good enough.

that is why "unqualifying" is wrong inhere.

Am I correct. pls, help.

I do not understand the explaination of Ron of "unqualifying". pls, help.