| Author |
Message |
|
yogeshpv
|
Post subject: Two oil companies agreed to merge  Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:01 pm |
|
 |
| Course Students |
|
|
Posts: 1
|
|
The two oil companies agreed to merge their refining and marketing operations in the Midwest and the West, forming a new company for controlling nearly fifteen of the nation’s gasoline sales.
A. forming a new company for controlling
B. forming a new company that would control
C. which would form a new company that controlled
D. which formed a new company for controlling
E. which formed a new company that would control
Why is the answer B, but not A? Can you provide insight between A and B.
OA: B
source: GMAT Prep
|
|
  |
|
 |
|
igordudchenko
|
Post subject: Re: Two oil companies agreed to merge Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:51 pm |
|
|
| Students |
|
|
Posts: 23
Location: Turkey
|
Sorry for off-topic, but when looking for an explanation of this question, I found the text from which the question has originated: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/19/busin ... ining.htmlQuote: The Shell Oil Company and Texaco Inc. announced yesterday that they had agreed to merge their refining and marketing operations in the Midwest and the West, forming a new company that would control nearly 15 percent of the nation's gasoline sales.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RonPurewal
|
Post subject: Re: Two oil companies agreed to merge Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:20 am |
|
|
| ManhattanGMAT Staff |
|
|
Posts: 7146
|
|
| |
|
|
|
pushkalk
|
Post subject: Re: Two oil companies agreed to merge Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2011 7:55 am |
|
|
| Students |
|
|
Posts: 25
|
|
Hey Ron,
Is B also a case of Hypothetical subjunctive ? (would)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RonPurewal
|
Post subject: Re: Two oil companies agreed to merge Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:35 am |
|
|
| ManhattanGMAT Staff |
|
|
Posts: 7146
|
pushkalk wrote: Hey Ron,
Is B also a case of Hypothetical subjunctive ? (would) no. in a “hypothetical subjunctive” situation, the subjunctive verb would follow “if”. “would” is not a subjunctive construction. as with most other grammatical constructions, this is a situation in which you would be best advised to get away from terminology and into specific, canonical examples as soon as you can. i.e., take a look at some websites on the hypothetical subjunctive and remember a few example sentences; then evaluate future instances by comparing them to those memorized examples. once you've gotten the hang of the way the construction works, the use of terminology will probably just make the concept more difficult to grasp.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
thanghnvn
|
Post subject: Re: Two oil companies agreed to merge Posted: Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:18 am |
|
|
| Forum Guests |
|
|
Posts: 206
|
|
In many question in OG books, "to do" is said to be correct and " for doing " is said to be incorrect. GMAT RULES THAT.
"to do" vs "for doing" is never discussed in general grammar books and that is why we are learning gmat grammar not general grammar and study of general grammar is useless.
of course, gmat grammar must be based on general grammar and if we, the non native lack some points in general grammar we have to study them. but be careful , do not study hard general grammar because hard general grammar is not tested on gmat.
some prep company offer some SC problem based on hard grammar points in general grammar. I think it is not good.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RonPurewal
|
Post subject: Re: Two oil companies agreed to merge Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 4:49 am |
|
|
| ManhattanGMAT Staff |
|
|
Posts: 7146
|
thanghnvn wrote: In many question in OG books, "to do" is said to be correct and " for doing " is said to be incorrect. GMAT RULES THAT. well, "for doing" is not something that is flat-out incorrect; there are contexts in which it could be just fine. perhaps most simply, if you had the choice of choosing between "to do" and "for doing" in parallel to some other construction "for VERBing", then you would definitely need the latter. Quote: of course, gmat grammar must be based on general grammar and if we, the non native lack some points in general grammar we have to study them. but be careful , do not study hard general grammar because hard general grammar is not tested on gmat. this is a good attitude to have. it is true that most points in "general grammar" books are not tested on this exam.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
thanghnvn
|
Post subject: Re: Two oil companies agreed to merge Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 9:34 am |
|
|
| Forum Guests |
|
|
Posts: 206
|
|
"for doing" is not alway wrong. "for doing" is wrong if it is used to show purposes
How do I do with "for doing" when I see "for doing" next time on gmat tests.
pls, help.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RonPurewal
|
Post subject: Re: Two oil companies agreed to merge Posted: Sun Dec 25, 2011 9:40 pm |
|
|
| ManhattanGMAT Staff |
|
|
Posts: 7146
|
thanghnvn wrote: "for doing" is not alway wrong. "for doing" is wrong if it is used to show purposes
How do I do with "for doing" when I see "for doing" next time on gmat tests.
pls, help. see my comment directly above; probably the most common instance of this decision would be in the case of parallelism with another “for VERBing” form. in general, you will not have to worry as much anymore about the purely idiomatic versions of constructions like these. see here: http://www.manhattangmat.com/blog/index ... -the-gmac/
|
|
| |
|
|
|
