Budget package in Congress

[er.charumahajan]

Because the budget package in Congress promises a combination of higher taxes and reduced spending that may slow economic growth, many in the credit markets wonder whether the Federal Reserve will compensate and help the economy by keeping interest rates low, or perhaps even if they push them lower.

A. by keeping interest rates low, or perhaps even if they push
B. by its keeping interest rates low, or perhaps even by their pushing
C. by keeping interest rates low, or perhaps even by pushing
D. through their keeping interest rates low, or perhaps even push
E. through their keeping interest rates low, or perhaps it will even push

I thought that the needs to be a parallelism - Whether X or Y.
Similarly Whether the Federal Reserve 'will compensate' OR perhaps 'will push'. I thought it will be between D and E. However the OA is C. Please guide.

[zhongshanlh]

Ron and Manhattan experts,
I would very much like know the difference between the use of "by" and the use of "through".

please clarify me and thank you very much.

[RonPurewal]

Because the budget package in Congress promises a combination of higher taxes and reduced spending that may slow economic growth, many in the credit markets wonder whether the Federal Reserve will compensate and help the economy by keeping interest rates low, or perhaps even if they push them lower.

A. by keeping interest rates low, or perhaps even if they push
B. by its keeping interest rates low, or perhaps even by their pushing
C. by keeping interest rates low, or perhaps even by pushing
D. through their keeping interest rates low, or perhaps even push
E. through their keeping interest rates low, or perhaps it will even push

I thought that the needs to be a parallelism - Whether X or Y.
Similarly Whether the Federal Reserve 'will compensate' OR perhaps 'will push'. I thought it will be between D and E. However the OA is C. Please guide.

wrong parallelism. there is no parallel structure of the form "whether x or y" in this sentence, because people are only wondering "whether" one thing will happen: namely, they are wondering whether the federal reserve will compensate xxxx blah blah blah.

there should be parallelism, however, between the two ways in which the federal reserve might accomplish this goal:
1/ they might keep interest rates low
2/ they might push rates even lower

therefore, the words that must be parallel are "keep" and "push".

[RonPurewal]

Ron and Manhattan experts,
I would very much like know the difference between the use of "by" and the use of "through".

please clarify me and thank you very much.

most importantly, this sort of difference is extremely unlikely to be tested on the exam. as you will see, it's quite subtle -- well beyond the scope of anything that gmac could reasonably test. if you see this split in a real problem, it's almost certainly meant to distract you from something else.

--

nevertheless, in case you are still interested, here's a rough idea:

* if a sentence specifies, at least somewhat precisely, the method by which someone is going to accomplish something, then it should use "by", not "through".

* if a sentence mentions a very general category of approaches, then "through" is more appropriate.

here are two examples:
i got to know james better by asking him questions about his life
(note that "asking him questions about his life" is pretty specific)
i got to know james better through conversation
("conversation" is much more general)

[wangyinwei_2005]

Hi, dear instructor, I know that their in B has a reference problem since in the end of the sentence,them refers to interests. but what I want to know is: is their pushing qualified in gmat test?
Also we can see its keeping in B, I know the usage is inferior to just keeping, but is this usage grammatically wrong? or does the usage possessive+ doing has a different meaning compared to just doing? can we eliminate when we see possessive+doing when we have other options with the usage doing?
please kindly reply, thanks!

[thanghnvn]

please, search "possesive+doing" in this forum to find some more question relating to this problem.

regarding doing/ possessive+doing.

1/ we use "doing" not "possesive+noun" or "possessive+doing" (if there is no noun) to say about the action of a subject, which is clear from context. if we use "possessive+doing" in this case, it is wordy.

I learn gmat, making my english better,

2/ we use noun, or doing (if there is no noun) to say about general action.

learning of English is good.
a due payment is highly appreciated.

3/ we use "possessive+doing" or "possessive+noun" when the subject of doing/noun is different from subject of the main clause:

I like his learning gmat.

I like him because his payment is good.

please, comment, explain, thank you , Manhantan experts.

[RonPurewal]

I know the usage is inferior to just keeping, but is this usage grammatically wrong? or does the usage possessive+ doing has a different meaning compared to just doing? can we eliminate when we see possessive+doing when we have other options with the usage doing?
please kindly reply, thanks!

in this case it's not idiomatic.
also, since the Federal Reserve is already the subject of the sentence, it's redundant; i'm sure this is what they're actually trying to test here.

if you were actually changing the subject, then you'd have to include the possessive for the sentence to make sense.
e.g., there's a sentence somewhere in gmat prep (or the og, i don't really remember) that talks about problems caused by human beings' burning of fossil fuels. in this case, "human beings' " is essesntial, because human beings weren't the subject of the sentence to start with.

[wangyinwei_2005]

I know the usage is inferior to just keeping, but is this usage grammatically wrong? or does the usage possessive+ doing has a different meaning compared to just doing? can we eliminate when we see possessive+doing when we have other options with the usage doing?
please kindly reply, thanks!

in this case it's not idiomatic.
also, since the Federal Reserve is already the subject of the sentence, it's redundant; i'm sure this is what they're actually trying to test here.

if you were actually changing the subject, then you'd have to include the possessive for the sentence to make sense.
e.g., there's a sentence somewhere in gmat prep (or the og, i don't really remember) that talks about problems caused by human beings' burning of fossil fuels. in this case, "human beings' " is essesntial, because human beings weren't the subject of the sentence to start with.

thank you, Ron! every time after reading your explanation, things seem much clearer!

[wangyinwei_2005]

I know the usage is inferior to just keeping, but is this usage grammatically wrong? or does the usage possessive+ doing has a different meaning compared to just doing? can we eliminate when we see possessive+doing when we have other options with the usage doing?
please kindly reply, thanks!

in this case it's not idiomatic.
also, since the Federal Reserve is already the subject of the sentence, it's redundant; i'm sure this is what they're actually trying to test here.

if you were actually changing the subject, then you'd have to include the possessive for the sentence to make sense.
e.g., there's a sentence somewhere in gmat prep (or the og, i don't really remember) that talks about problems caused by human beings' burning of fossil fuels. in this case, "human beings' " is essesntial, because human beings weren't the subject of the sentence to start with.

thank you, Ron! every time after reading your explanation, things seem much clearer!

[jnelson0612]

Great!

[rohit.manglik]

I read somewhere (most probably in MGMAT SC Guide) that whenever we have comma - FANBOYS, both the sentences must be ICs.

Over here we have ",or perhaps even by pushing them lower", which is not IC. I am unable to understand where I am getting wrong.

Please guide.

[RonPurewal]

i do not know the meaning of "ICs" or "fanboys", so i will have to ignore those parts of your question.

on the other hand, the presence/absence of punctuation is not tested on this exam, so this looks like something that is altogether irrelevant.

[RonPurewal]

if you happen to be talking about the (mistaken) idea that ", and..." must be followed by a complete sentence, then ... nope.

i wrote about that here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p59385

and here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p70164