The globalization of financial-services companies...

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,
Can I sum up the above as following?

Allow: ~ sb/sth to do
Persuade and Advice: ~sb/sth to do; ~sb/sth that clause
(as for forbid, as you said, let's just wait for some Official problems to clarify GMAT's judgement)

Thank you very much!

this is accurate.

[RonPurewal]

Allow: ~ sb/sth to do
Persuade and Advice: ~sb/sth to do; ~sb/sth that clause
(as for forbid, as you said, let's just wait for some Official problems to clarify GMAT's judgement)

Thank you very much!

this is correct.

[xyzxyzxyz123]

i still have one question. What is wrong with C

C. it allows that money placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction is transferred

[RonPurewal]

i still have one question. What is wrong with C

C. it allows that money placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction is transferred

this is not a correct idiomatic structure with "allow".

[llzzyy234]

The globalization of financial-services companies has been a boon to money launders, because of allowing money placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction to be transferred to a branch in a more regulated one.
A) of allowing money placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction to be transferred
B) of allowing the transfer of money placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction
C) it allows that money placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction is transferred
D) it allows the transfer of money have been placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction
E) it allows money placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction to be transferred

OA: E.

Want to understand the logic behind this question. Thanks

"Because of" end with preposition of. So it should be followed by a noun. So we cann rule out A and B.

C can be ruled out becaue of idiom..it is allow x to .
D is awkard and E is perfect.
it allows money( placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction )to be transferred

in bracket is past particle...remove it and then see the sentence....it allows money to be transfered.....

Is option (A) wrong because the structure "because of doing" is wrong?
Here is another example from PREP:
Please refer to here:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/the-loan-company-t5751.html
The loan company announced it would soon lend money to borrowers with proven records of their not paying back their loans on time, collectively known as the subprime lending market.
A. of their not paying back their loans on time,
B. of not paying back their loans on time, a group
C. of not paying back their loans on time, with such a group
D. that they do not pay back their loans on time,
E. that they do not pay back their loans on time, such a group
OA: B

The option B contains the structure "of not paying", so I want to confirm two things
1. Is "of doing" right or wrong, or how to judge it right or wrong?
2. If "because of doing" is right, what's the problem with structure "because of allowing money placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction to be transferred" in option A?

Thanks in advance

[RonPurewal]

Is option (A) wrong because the structure "because of doing" is wrong?

yeah.

1. Is "of doing" right or wrong, or how to judge it right or wrong?

there is no simple answer to this question; it depends what this particular construction is attached to.

2. If "because of doing" is right, what's the problem with ...

it's not.

[zhongshanlh]

Hi There,

Can you please explain why answer choice D is wrong?
Thanks
Arun

(d) is a weird construction that tries to have two verbs without any sort of connector -- it says "it allows X have been Y".
this is like saying "i'm missing the piece goes here" (instead of, e.g., "i'm missing the piece that goes here").

hi,Ron, i am not very clear about this problem here?
i remember that a present participle can be a noun modifier,then in option C, why cann't i regard the "having been placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction" as a noun modifier and it modifies the noun money.

[RonPurewal]

i remember that a present participle can be a noun modifier,then in option C, why cann't i regard the "having been placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction" as a noun modifier and it modifies the noun money.

according to the version of this problem at the top of the thread, that answer choice says "have" (a verb), not "having".

[sudi.iitg03]

Hi ron

whats wrong with A ??
pls explain.

[tim]

Ron already answered that..

[nowwithgmat]

Hi There,

Can you please explain why answer choice D is wrong?
Thanks
Arun

(d) is a weird construction that tries to have two verbs without any sort of connector -- it says "it allows X have been Y".
this is like saying "i'm missing the piece goes here" (instead of, e.g., "i'm missing the piece that goes here").

Hello Ron
can i Read Option D like this way
......because it allows transfer of money from X to Y(a branch in a more regulated one.)

and option D lacks of clarity about the above stuff....???

thanx

[RonPurewal]

Hello Ron
can i Read Option D like this way
......because it allows transfer of money from X to Y(a branch in a more regulated one.)

and option D lacks of clarity about the above stuff....???

thanx

i'm sorry, but i don't think i understand your question.
are you asking whether that's the intended meaning of the sentence? if so, then sure... but that doesn't address the problem, which is that (d) is written in a form that's not a legitimate sentence.

[f1922303]

Hi Ron,

1. I have a question regarding overall meaning:

Can you "allow money...."? This sounds illogical to me (and I think I once saw a similar question that such answer choice was eliminated due to that reason).

You "allow people/companies/banks (to transfer money)" or you "allow the transfer of money"...

"Allow money to be transferred" seems (although we use passive mood) like the money has a saying in the matter (it can comply with this prohibition or not).

2. Another question - Stacy said that "it" refers to the subject of the first clause. Is this a definite rule? In that case (2 indp. clauses) will an "it" always refer to the subject of the first clause?
It (referring to the subject of the previous sentence :) ) still looks ambiguous to me.

Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

1. I have a question regarding overall meaning:

Can you "allow money...."? This sounds illogical to me (and I think I once saw a similar question that such answer choice was eliminated due to that reason).

officially correct answers are not wrong!
do not question officially correct answers!
far too many students on this forum make the mistake of questioning the correct answers; please note that doing so is a complete waste of your time and effort. i.e., exactly 0% of the time that you spend posting "isn't this official answer wrong?" is productive, and exactly 100% of that time is wasted.

"is this correct?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always yes.
"is this wrong?" / "is this X type of error?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always no.

instead, the questions you should be asking about correct official answers, if you don't understand them, are:
"why is this correct?"
"how does this work?"
"what understanding am i lacking that i need to understand this choice?"

this is a small, but hugely significant, change to your way of thinking -- you will suddenly find it much easier to understand the format, style, and conventions of the official problems if you dispose of the idea that they might be wrong.

You "allow people/companies/banks (to transfer money)" or you "allow the transfer of money"...

"Allow money to be transferred" seems (although we use passive mood) like the money has a saying in the matter (it can comply with this prohibition or not).

absolutely not; you can also allow (or not allow) inanimate objects to do things.
e.g., an "airtight container" is one that does not allow air to enter or escape.

2. Another question - Stacy said that "it" refers to the subject of the first clause. Is this a definite rule? In that case (2 indp. clauses) will an "it" always refer to the subject of the first clause?
It (referring to the subject of the previous sentence :) ) still looks ambiguous to me.

Thanks.

"pronoun ambiguity" is not something that the current gmat exam tests, so don't worry about it. (thinking about "ambiguous pronouns" is much more likely to make you mistakenly eliminate correct sentences than to help you solve the problems.)

if the pronoun works grammatically (i.e., it's standing for a noun, and it matches the noun in terms of sing/pl), and it's plain from common sense which noun is intended, then the pronoun is fine.

[Crisc419]

I choose the right answer, but i am still not sure about choice A

A) of allowing money placed in a bank in a less regulated jurisdiction to be transferred


What is wrong here?