* SC need help

[RonPurewal]

there are at least three MAJOR problems with this last post.

1/
"pronoun ambiguity" is not tested on the GMAT, so there is no point in even considering this sort of thing.

2/
the intended meaning is common sense.
lawyers have clients. judges don't.

3/
"lawyers" is the only plural noun in the entire sentence—so, even if you didn't understand the meaning of the sentence, there would still not be a problem here.

[LimeiC714]

Hi Ron, I still don't understand why we need passive voice here. I remember you said that, only if the subject is unimportant or doesn't mention, we will use passive voice. but in this sentence, the federal judge should be the one who take action, the passive voice seems to not imply that.
could you explain this for me?
thanks in advance, naomi

[RonPurewal]

we don't NEED a passive construction. the other answer choices are incorrect for reasons that have nothing to do with that.

__

also -- if you think very precisely about the meaning, you'll realize this is the best way to write the sentence.
the lawyers' point isn't that the judge has to do something; their point is that SOMETHING has to be done BY SOMEONE with the relevant authority.
as long as corrective actions are taken -- regardless of whether those actions are taken by a judge or by someone else, e.g., legislators or regulators -- the client and lawyers will be satisfied.

[RonPurewal]

i'm going to lock this thread, since it's posted in the wrong folder.