The three women, liberal activists who strongly

[eggpain24]

I am a little bit confused about the choice E

would the change from consistently to ”consistent“ be problematic？

Ron，plz clarify~

[jingjiaol257]

a is out because 'ing' cannot come after possessive form of noun

not true.
there are plenty of constructions in which that's ok. example: he took annette's growling dog out for a walk.
no problem there.

the issue here is just that "labor's unqualifying support" is just ridiculously awkward. this is one of those things that native speakers will understand almost instinctively, but that is nevertheless nearly impossible to explain to non-natives.

in general, i'm loath to use apostrophe + "s" for anything but humans, animals, and the like. this is definitely NOT a hard and fast rule, but i've noticed that it's fairly consistent across most usage.
thus, "an ape's vocal tract" is preferred to "the vocal tract of an ape", but "the colors of the mural" is better than "the mural's colors".

in general, if you get to pick between the apostrophe+s construction and the "of" construction, and the possessor isn't a living thing, i'd go with the latter.
but by all means try to eliminate based on other things first.

the REAL issue, though, is "unqualifying" -- this is incorrect.
"unqualifying" means "not meeting some sort of standard for qualification".
the intended meaning here is "unqualified", which means "without any sort of restriction or reservation".

--

the past perfect makes perfect (heh) sense here. the idea is that, lately, the women have been receiving support from labor.
the present participial form "are receiving" would also make sense, but remember that you aren't supposed to change the meaning of the sentence without a good reason for doing so.

--

once, just once, i'd like to see a sentence about people dedicated to a conservative cause.
just once.

i think i'm going to have to wait a very long time.

hi ron
i really want to know whether there is different meanings among the five choices due to the usage of consistently and consistent. Whether DE are wrong because of "consistent"?
thanks!

[RonPurewal]

There's no real difference.

Analogy: "The dog needs regular walks" and "the dog needs to be walked regularly" are basically the same.

Remember——If meaning differences matter, they'll be BIG differences. Not subtleties.
If you have to think about something for a long, long time to discern whether there's a difference in meaning, then, most likely, there's no significant difference in meaning.

[eggpain24]

I am a little bit confused about the choice E

would the change from consistently to ”consistent“ be problematic？

Ron，plz clarify~

Ron, it seems that you might have missed my post. Sorry for bumping this thread, but really need your clarifications, thanks!

appreciate your help~

[tim]

Ron didn't miss your post at all. We are busy working through a MASSIVE backlog of your posts and have to make sure to give other students some attention too. Please understand that the more you post, the longer on average it takes us to get to your questions.

BTW I must have missed how you "need" our clarifications. You haven't fully explained how urgently you "need" our help, but I should probably point out that we offer private tutoring services for students who have a large number of questions they feel "need" to be addressed quickly.

[gmatkiller_24]

I am a little bit confused about the choice E

would the change from consistently to ”consistent“ be problematic？

Ron，plz clarify~

Please help~

same doubt here~

[RichaChampion]

a is out because 'ing' cannot come after possessive form of noun

not true.
there are plenty of constructions in which that's ok. example: he took annette's growling dog out for a walk.
no problem there.

the issue here is just that "labor's unqualifying support" is just ridiculously awkward. this is one of those things that native speakers will understand almost instinctively, but that is nevertheless nearly impossible to explain to non-natives.

in general, i'm loath to use apostrophe + "s" for anything but humans, animals, and the like. this is definitely NOT a hard and fast rule, but i've noticed that it's fairly consistent across most usage.
thus, "an ape's vocal tract" is preferred to "the vocal tract of an ape", but "the colors of the mural" is better than "the mural's colors".

in general, if you get to pick between the apostrophe+s construction and the "of" construction, and the possessor isn't a living thing, i'd go with the latter.
but by all means try to eliminate based on other things first.

the REAL issue, though, is "unqualifying" -- this is incorrect.
"unqualifying" means "not meeting some sort of standard for qualification".
the intended meaning here is "unqualified", which means "without any sort of restriction or reservation".

--

the past perfect makes perfect (heh) sense here. the idea is that, lately, the women have been receiving support from labor.
the present participial form "are receiving" would also make sense, but remember that you aren't supposed to change the meaning of the sentence without a good reason for doing so.

--

once, just once, i'd like to see a sentence about people dedicated to a conservative cause.
just once.

i think i'm going to have to wait a very long time.

Ron I couldn't understand why have you written these lines -
the past perfect makes perfect (heh) sense here. the idea is that, lately, the women have been receiving support from labor.

I couldn't find past perfect in any option?

[RonPurewal]

i don't know the names of the tenses. my brain is incapable of retaining that sort of thing.
if i use grammatical terms here, that means i've just looked them up. (yes, every single time... i've looked up some terms twenty or thirty times, and i still can't remember them).

so, yeah, i wouldn't be surprised if i got the name(s) wrong.

also, whatever post you're quoting is probably several years old; i haven't really bothered to look up any grammar terms in the last few years (because, for this exam, there's no point in knowing them anyway).

[CrystalSpringston]

Hi Ron,
May I know whether"are receiving" and "consistently" are redundant here?
The former has already expressed a on-going status.
Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

redundant? no.
illogical / self-contradictory? yes.

'are __ing' describes whatever is happening right now.
this is incompatible with 'consistently', which is more general and thus applies to a larger timeframe.

if the message is 'xxx happens consistently these days', then that message should be expressed in the present: xxx happens consistently (NOT 'is happening consistently').

to describe a pattern of recent observations (ongoing up to the present), the message is xxx has consistently happened (as in the correct version here).

[JbhB682]

Hi - I am unable to understand why "unqualifying" is incorrect whereas unqualified is accurate. Is there a logic -wise approach to this ?

For example - in another case -- the usage of the present participle adjective is better than past partciple adjective (i think ?)

I have the increasing support of the audience
vs
I have the increased support of the audience

I think increasing is preferred over increased in this sentence.

How to reconcile this

Thank you !

[esledge]

This is an interesting question, especially since it highlights the difference between how the verbs "unqualify" and "increase" morphed into adjectives in English. As far as I can tell, "unqualifying" is just not a word that exists, certainly not as an adjective and maybe not even as an adverbial modifier (for example, I don't think "He stepped over the line, unqualifying for the event" is right; it would be "He stepped over the line, disqualifying for the event.")

But I'm aware that I'm using my native English speaker ear (and Google dictionary definitions), whereas you want a rule. Unfortunately, I don't think there is one. I'd encourage you to focus on the other splits in this question (so, mainly the verb tense split). If you must use an Idiom split, there's a 2nd one (support of labor/by labor) that is "easier" or at least more likely to be found on other questions.

[JbhB682]

Hi Experts - in D, is the usage of present tense okay ? I think present tense is okay given the adjective - consistent

The adjective - consistent in my view DOES NOT IMPLY the verb [receive] must have happened already in the past

I think that its possible that the author intended to write this sentence as a "General truth"

Maybe as a general truth - these women recieve support by labor

So i thought D was okay when it comes to verb tense.

If option D used the adverb consistently instead of the adjective consistent

I think the adverb consistently DOES imply the verb [receive] must have happened in the past. In that case, the usage of present tense would be wrong

Curious on your thoughts

[JbhB682]

redundant? no.
illogical / self-contradictory? yes.

'are __ing' describes whatever is happening right now.
this is incompatible with 'consistently', which is more general and thus applies to a larger timeframe.

if the message is 'xxx happens consistently these days', then that message should be expressed in the present: xxx happens consistently (NOT 'is happening consistently').

to describe a pattern of recent observations (ongoing up to the present), the message is xxx has consistently happened (as in the correct version here).

Hi Experts - Ron mentioned this post above and I agree

Just confirming if this applies ONLY TO option B and NOT to option E ?

Both option B and Option E use the present continous BUT option B uses the adverb "consistently" whereas option E uses the adjective "consistent"

In E - i thought the usage of present continous is okay because of the adjective "consistent" does not imply the verb MUST HAVE taken place in the past

Just confirming

analogy to option E : i am recieving consistent support from Manhattan experts

- I think above analogy to option E is okay.
- The verb is taking place RIGHT NOW.
- Consistent is referring to noun (support)

Thoughts

[TiffanyB]

Hello JbhB682,

Yes, (E) is similar to (B) in meaning.

(B) are consistently receiving the unqualifying support of labor --> could be more logically expressed as "consistently receive the unqualifying support of labor."
(E) are receiving consistent and unqualified support by labor --> could be more logically expressed as "receive consistent and unqualified support by labor."

The issue isn't whether the action took place in the past, but when it's taking place in the present moment.

Consider the differences in the following:
I run consistently. --> This indicates that I run on a regular basis, although a frequency is omitted.
I am running consistently. --> This indicates that in the present moment, I am running consistently, i.e., maintaining a consistent pace.