* Since February, the Federal Reserve has raised its

[samwong]

I eliminated answer choice A because I thought "because of the economy’s continued strength" is wrong.

In the MGMAT SC 5th ed. p240, "Possessive Nuances", the rule states that "you should not choose Y of X's to indicate that Y belongs to X."

Can you please explain how answer choice A correctly used "OF X's"?

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

I eliminated answer choice A because I thought "because of the economy’s continued strength" is wrong.

In the MGMAT SC 5th ed. p240, "Possessive Nuances", the rule states that "you should not choose Y of X's to indicate that Y belongs to X."

Can you please explain how answer choice A correctly used "OF X's"?

Thank you.

That's referring to things like "a friend of Tony's" (widespread in spoken English), rather than the correct "a friend of Tony".
The point is that the 's is redundant here, because "of" already signifies that the person is Tony's friend.

This choice doesn't have this issue. If it said "strength of the economy's""”rather than "the economy's strength" or "strength of the economy""”then it would have this issue.

Remember, ALL "formulas" take meaning into account. You cannot just blindly look for words that are spelled a certain way, without thinking about whether they're actually the words that are relevant to the issue.

[lindaliu9273]

Can someone please comment on the grammatical rules regarding

because of/because/due to/due to the fact that

I believe due to the fact of is wrong ?

here's the easiest way to figure out "due to":

"due to" means "caused by".
if you can't replace "due to" with "caused by", then it's wrong.

for instance:

i was late due to the construction --> incorrect (because you can't say "i was late caused by the construction")

i was late because of the construction --> correct.

--

in general, "due to" only applies to nouns, since it means "caused by".

for instance,
the traffic jam was due to an obstruction in the left lane
or
the traffic jam due to the obstruction in the left lane caused 30-minute delays

these are correct because "caused by" works just fine - the noun modified is "the traffic".

--

should be (a). what's the source of the problem?

if this problem is not from GMAT PREP, we're going to have to delete it. what is the strange number given at the start of the problem?

Is it true that "due to " can't be placed at the beginning of a sentence? I think a sentence cannot begin with "caused by". But I think many sentences begin with "due to" in daily life.

Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

But I think many sentences begin with "due to" in daily life.

Thank you!

Yes, that's how it is commonly used in spoken language (and in less formal, or less well-edited, writing).
... and it's tested here precisely because that usage is wrong in formal writing. That's the whole point of putting it in the problems!
(More specifically, it's a sucker-punch aimed at native speakers of English"”who are much more likely to think it's OK, because they have grown up with spoken English.)

The same is true for many other things tested here. E.g., spoken "which" usually stands for an entire sentence, but written "which" can only stand for a noun.
Again, native speakers are much more likely to get this kind of thing incorrect. So, by testing it, GMAC is helping to keep the test fair (since there are other things on which native speakers will have an advantage).

[eggpain24]

got some doubts~ please clarify, Ron

in choice B，with the economy's strength continuing

this part is problematic

because what we want to stress is “continued economic strength” （as seen in choice A） → B is wrong：strength is put in the core structure（continuing is only a modifier modifying it，and thus seems incorrect）

as to the split between “would” vs “will”

1. “would” can be legally used as “future in the past” → if we used “would” here → the event has already happened，but not yet happen when we moved back to the past timeframe

2. will → the event is not yet happening today，and we are still waiting it to happen

well，when it comes to the certainly level
“will” is much much more certain than “would”

if we construed the usage of ”would“ here as “future in the past”，is it still problematic？

[RonPurewal]

because what we want to stress is “continued economic strength” （as seen in choice A） → B is wrong：strength is put in the core structure（continuing is only a modifier modifying it，and thus seems incorrect）

I'm not following this argument.

In the end, though, this isn't anything to worry about.

• The GMAT will NOT test "stress" or "emphasis". These are stylistic matters, not objective issues of intended meaning or mechanical problems. Style/rhetorical issues are not tested.

• If meaning issues are tested, they will be BIG differences in meaning. No subtleties.

So, this is a non-issue.

[RonPurewal]

if we construed the usage of ”would“ here as “future in the past”，is it still problematic？

The sentence is written from a present point of view. ("Have been predicting", like other "have/has ___ed" forms, is written from a present point of view.)
This kind of "would" requires a past point of view, which is incompatible with the present sentence.

[eggpain24]

if we construed the usage of ”would“ here as “future in the past”，is it still problematic？

The sentence is written from a present point of view. ("Have been predicting", like other "have/has ___ed" forms, is written from a present point of view.)
This kind of "would" requires a past point of view, which is incompatible with the present sentence.

thanks!!!

[tim]

:)

[rustom.hakimiyan]

if we construed the usage of ”would“ here as “future in the past”，is it still problematic？

The sentence is written from a present point of view. ("Have been predicting", like other "have/has ___ed" forms, is written from a present point of view.)
This kind of "would" requires a past point of view, which is incompatible with the present sentence.

Hi Ron,

Can you elaborate on the above comment a little more. My understanding was as follows:

1) He has raised the rates, and because of the economy, the feds have been predicting that the market will rise.

Doesn't this imply that the rates have been raised in the past(we don't know when but this action is complete). "Have been" predicting implies that the predictions started shortly after the rates were raised and they have been going on until now. The predictions have stopped but the effects could still linger(public optimism etc). The prediction is that the rates will DEFINITELY rise(because of the will).

2) He has raised the rates, and because of the economy, the feds have been predicting that the market would rise.

In this case, everything is the same but they are just uncertain whether the market will rise. Isn't this the correct interpretation?

3) He had raised the rates, and because of the economy, the feds were predicting that the market will rise.

This implies that the rates were raised. The feds were predicting(they are no longer predicting) that the market will definitely rise.

4) He had raised the rates, and because of the economy, the feds were predicting that the market would rise.

Same as 3 but they are just uncertain whether the market will rise.

[RonPurewal]

1) He has raised the rates, and because of the economy, the feds have been predicting that the market will rise.

Doesn't this imply that the rates have been raised in the past(we don't know when but this action is complete). "Have been" predicting implies that the predictions started shortly after the rates were raised and they have been going on until now. The predictions have stopped but the effects could still linger(public optimism etc). The prediction is that the rates will DEFINITELY rise(because of the will).

mostly accurate.

the red part is wrong. if "has/had ___ed" is used for something ongoing into the present, then it could either (a) have stopped just now OR (b) still be happening.

e.g., "i have been sick for 5 days" is something you can say if you just healed up ... but it's also something you can say if you're still sick ("i've been sick for 5 days, and there's no end in sight").

(the particular context of this problem very strongly suggests that the predictions have NOT stopped.)

[RonPurewal]

2) He has raised the rates, and because of the economy, the feds have been predicting that the market would rise.

In this case, everything is the same but they are just uncertain whether the market will rise. Isn't this the correct interpretation?

this sentence is nonsense, because it's self-contradictory. if the feds have been predicting something, then, well, they think it's going to happen.

[RonPurewal]

3) He had raised the rates, and because of the economy, the feds were predicting that the market will rise.

This implies that the rates were raised. The feds were predicting(they are no longer predicting) that the market will definitely rise.

this one needs more explicit time cues. it confuses me.

in particular, since the bulk of the sentence has a clear past time orientation, we need sufficient cues to justify "will" (as opposed to "would").

this is theoretically possible——e.g., The idea that humans will colonize the moon in the year 2100 was first published by Smith, who had spent many years working out the fantastic details of exactly how they will get there.
^^ you see what i mean. the two "will"s are in the year 2100; the time reference for "was" and "had spent" is the timeframe of smith's publication.

the chance that a correct answer will contain such machinations, though?
pretty much nil.

for this exam, there's no reason to burden your mind with stuff like this. don't forget: if tenses actually matter in these problems, the differences will be big and relatively simple.

[RonPurewal]

3) He had raised the rates, and because of the economy, the feds were predicting that the market will rise.

This implies that the rates were raised. The feds were predicting(they are no longer predicting) that the market will definitely rise.

"will" has the same issue as in #2.

remember, "will..." means "later than the PRESENT". since the rest of this sentence is in the past tense, we need explicit cues to justify such a thing.

if no such cues are present, then you actually want a sentence like #4.
if you translate "will" into the past tense—i.e., "this was 'the future' at the time described, though perhaps no longer"—then it becomes "would".

i think that i will come over to your place later today.

yesterday, i decided that i would go to kai's place to watch the game.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Thanks -- this really clears things up.

Key is the chain of events. For whatever reason, whenever I see things that are all in the same tenses, I get a little flustered.

He was tired so he didn't go to the gym. For whatever reason, I would try to put a "had been" in there to describe the chain of events -- "he had been tired so he didn't go to the gym".