SC: Faulty voting euipment, confusing ballots, voter error,

[Simon]

SC: Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, adn problems at polling places have been cited by a new study of the 2000 United STates Presidential election, which estimated that they did not count 4 million to 6 million of th e100 million votes cast.

a.) Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been cited by a new study of the 2000 United Stated presidential election, which estimated that they did not count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast.

b.) Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at pollingplaces, a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election has estimated that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted.

c.) Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted in the 2000 United States presidential election, a new study estimates.

d.) A new study has cited faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places in estimating that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes that were cast had not been counted in the 2000 United States presidential election.

e.) A new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, has estimated 4 million to 6 million votes had not been counted of the 100 million votes cast.

Correct answer: B

I had no problem eliminating answers A & C because of modifier problems but I was lost after that. Is the key here verb tenses?

[RonPurewal]

a.) Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been cited by a new study of the 2000 United Stated presidential election, which estimated that they did not count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast.

the "which" is suboptimal here, because it may also be taken to modify the election itself. i'm not sure, though, whether the gmat would label it as outright wrong.
by far the most grievous error in this choice is "they", which doesn't refer to anything. it's also among the easiest things to spot, too; basically, you should keep a close eye on ANY pronoun that you see in a sentence.

b.) Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at pollingplaces, a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election has estimated that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted.

correct answer.
the initial subject-less modifier modifies the immediately following noun (a new study), as required.
there are no pronoun problems.

c.) Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted in the 2000 United States presidential election, a new study estimates.

the initial modifier doesn't have a subject, so it is attributed to the immediately following noun. unfortunately, in this case the immediately following noun is "4m to 6m of the ... votes", which makes no sense.
the placement of "cast" vis-à-vis "in the election" also doesn't make sense here; those two are dissociated from each other. the wording of the sentence seems to imply that the votes were simply "cast" - not in this or that election, but just "cast" - and that they simply "weren't counted in the 2000 election". the literal interpretation is that the votes may still have counted in some other election.

analogy:
many of the drinks at the party were not consumed --> nobody drank them, ever.
many of the drinks were not consumed at the party --> they may have been consumed later.
same problem.

d.) A new study has cited faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places in estimating that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes that were cast had not been counted in the 2000 United States presidential election.

the biggest problem is the relative placement of "cast" vis-à-vis "in the election", described in detail for choice (c) above.
"that were" is also wordy and can be removed without consequence.

e.) A new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, has estimated 4 million to 6 million votes had not been counted of the 100 million votes cast.

when a subject phrase contains a prepositional modifier, you can't insert the verb between the noun and the modifier. at best it's nonsensical (as in this example), and at worst it changes the meaning of the sentence:
my friend from florida came to the bar --> he's originally from florida
my friend came to the bar from florida --> 3000 miles is a long, long way to go for some beers.

ergo, you can't divorce "4m to 6m votes" from "of the 100m votes cast".

[cesar.rodriguez.blanco]

c.) Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted in the 2000 United States presidential election, a new study estimates.

the placement of "cast" vis-à-vis "in the election" also doesn't make sense here; those two are dissociated from each other. the wording of the sentence seems to imply that the votes were simply "cast" - not in this or that election, but just "cast" - and that they simply "weren't counted in the 2000 election". the literal interpretation is that the votes may still have counted in some other election.

analogy:
many of the drinks at the party were not consumed --> nobody drank them, ever.
many of the drinks were not consumed at the party --> they may have been consumed later.
same problem.

I do not understand your explanation. It would be possible to rephrase it?

[RonPurewal]

hi cesar -

I do not understand your explanation. It would be possible to rephrase it?

do you understand the two examples given underneath the explanation (the two examples dealing with drinks at the party)? can you reliably articulate the differences between these two examples?

if you can, then you don't really need the words that come above them.

if not, i'll try again.

[cesar.rodriguez.blanco]

I did not understand the previous example. I did not see the differences neither in the SC nor in your example.
Can you explain another one?

[RonPurewal]

I did not understand the previous example. I did not see the differences neither in the SC nor in your example.
Can you explain another one?

here's another set that's probably easier to understand.

my friend got married in Las Vegas --> my friend could live anywhere in the world, but he went to Las Vegas for his wedding.

my friend in Las Vegas got married --> my friend, who lives in Las Vegas, got married. (we don't know where the wedding took place)

does that make better sense?

[gupta.ab]

e.) A new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, has estimated 4 million to 6 million votes had not been counted of the 100 million votes cast.

when a subject phrase contains a prepositional modifier, you can't insert the verb between the noun and the modifier. at best it's nonsensical (as in this example), and at worst it changes the meaning of the sentence:
my friend from florida came to the bar --> he's originally from florida
my friend came to the bar from florida --> 3000 miles is a long, long way to go for some beers.

ergo, you can't divorce "4m to 6m votes" from "of the 100m votes cast".[/quote]


My doubt is highlighted blue above.
I understood the example you gave but i am unable to relate it with the answer choice E.

[2amitprakash]

@gupta.ab

As ron stated, "had not been counted" is inserted between the noun "4 m to 6 m votes" and the prepositional modifier "of the 100 m". It makes a nonsensical statement.

[RonPurewal]

@gupta.ab

As ron stated, "had not been counted" is inserted between the noun "4 m to 6 m votes" and the prepositional modifier "of the 100 m". It makes a nonsensical statement.

thanks.

[rajinikanth]

Hi Ron,
1) can we eliminate A based on "by" passive voice ?
2) regarding B, in another of your post i read about the placement of participle modifier
"having worked all day, the old firefighter stood over the smoking ruin"
Having->stood, Can I assume the same here , citing-->estimated?
3) Is it true that a sentence should make sense even when the part within enclosing comma is removed? Can I use this to eliminate C? Is C in passive voice?
4) can we eliminate D based on estimating?
Thanks,
Raj

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,
1) can we eliminate A based on "by" passive voice ?[/quote[

no. there is nothing inherently wrong with the passive voice.

i'm not sure where people get this pervasive idea that the passive voice is automatically wrong, but it's simply not true.

this contention is especially ironic in this particular problem, since there is a passive-voice construction ("were not counted") in the correct answer.

--

the easiest way to eliminate choice (a) is to notice that the pronoun "which" is placed in such a way that it modifies "presidential election".

2) regarding B, in another of your post i read about the placement of participle modifier
"having worked all day, the old firefighter stood over the smoking ruin"
Having->stood, Can I assume the same here , citing-->estimated?

i'm not exactly sure what those arrows are supposed to mean.

if you're asking about the usage of this kind of modifier (initial -ING modifier), note that the modifier should
* apply to the immediately following subject, and
* describe something concurrent with the action in the main clause.

both of these conditions are satisfied here.

3) Is it true that a sentence should make sense even when the part within enclosing comma is removed? Can I use this to eliminate C? Is C in passive voice?

you can't make that claim in general; many kinds of modifiers absolutely require enclosing commas, and wouldn't make sense at all without them.
for instance, appositive modifiers must be set off by commas:
my brother, a consultant, lives in san francisco.
it should be clear that you cannot remove the commas from this sentence.

again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the passive voice.
choice (c) does contain a passive-voice construction, but note that exactly the same construction appears in the correct answer!

4) can we eliminate D based on estimating?
Thanks,
Raj

nope. (d) is actually perfectly grammatical; the error is in the placement of the modifier "in the 2000 United States presidential election".
the way this sentence is written, it suggests that the votes weren't counted in that particular election, but may in fact have been counted in another election!
the correct placement of this modifier is after the word "cast", since that's what they were -- votes that were cast in the 2000 united states presidential election.

when you consider the placement of modifiers, grammatical issues are rarely present. in other words, most modifiers are placed in locations that make grammatical sense; incorrect modifiers are usually incorrect because they create meanings that don't make sense.

[ananya_seth2003]

Can we eliminate D on the pretext that "had" is wrongly used.

"...votes that were cast had not been counted..." seems to imply that votes were cast after they were not counted

[tim]

Yes, "had" is problematic here. Good analysis..

[jp.jprasanna]

Yes, "had" is problematic here. Good analysis..

Hi Tim - Could you please let me know how "had" is problematic in D and E

Are they wrong because we dont have "simple past" we only have past perfect.

in option D- has cited
and
in E - has estimated?

If the sentence were written with only "cited" or "estimated" - then is "had" justified?

Are the below 2 correct?

Teacher found out that John had cheated in the exam.
Survey cited/estimated that 4 M votes had not been counted.

Cheers

[eybrj2]

I have a question regarding tense in E.

Does "had not been" located betweeen 4 million and of the 100 million have a problem?

Since counting the votes happened before the new study estimated and counting is done when the new study estimated, I thought that using past perfect tense was appropriate.

am I wrong?