GMAT Exam  >  GMAT Questions  >  Warning that terrorists remain determined to ... Start Learning for Free
Warning that terrorists remain determined to strike the country, senior government officials urged citizens to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe should terrorists succeed in launching an attack.
  • a)
    to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe
  • b)
    to remain vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe
  • c)
    to be remaining vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior, and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe
  • d)
    to remain vigilant, report suspicious behavior, and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe
  • e)
    to be more vigilant in reporting suspicious behavior and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Verified Answer
Warning that terrorists remain determined to strike the country, senio...
There are two main problems with the original sentence:
(1) The government authorities urged citizens to do three things: remain vigilant, report suspicious behavior, and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe. Consequently, these three requests from the government need to be parallel. In this case, each command should be in the infinitive form (e.g., to remain, to report, and to take). The original sentence wrongly constructs the phrase taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe such that it modifies the two previous actions. Instead, this phrase should reflect the fact that taking actions... is a third action that the government is urging citizens to take. In short, the three actions that the government is urging are not parallel and they should be.
(2) taking actions necessary... illogically modifies the command to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior because these two actions would not speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe. In other words, it does not make sense that remaining vigilant and reporting suspicious behavior (two actions that would occur before an attack) would be modified such that these are actions that speed up the recovery from an attack.
  1. The three actions that the government urged are not parallel (i.e., to remain is not parallel with taking); the word necessary is not needed
  2. The three actions that the government urged are not parallel (i.e., to remain is not parallel with reporting and take)
  3. The three actions that the government urged are not parallel (i.e., to remain is not parallel with reporting and taking); the word necessary is not needed
  4. The sentence is correctly constructed as the three actions that the government urged are parallel; the un-needed word necessary is omitted
  5. The meaning of the original sentence is distorted as this sentence indicates that the government asked citizens to be more vigilant in reporting suspicious behavior (a single command) while the original sentence separated the command to remain vigilant and the command to report suspicious behavior; the three actions that the government urged are not parallel
View all questions of this test
Most Upvoted Answer
Warning that terrorists remain determined to strike the country, senio...
Explanation:

This is a sentence correction question that requires selecting the most appropriate option to convey the intended meaning clearly and concisely. Let's analyze each option:

a) "to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe"

- This option is grammatically correct and conveys the intended meaning. It emphasizes the need for vigilance, reporting suspicious behavior, and taking actions to expedite recovery from an economic catastrophe if an attack occurs.

b) "to remain vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe"

- This option is also grammatically correct, but it lacks parallel structure. The verb "reporting" should be in the same form as "remain" and "take," so it should be "to remain vigilant, report suspicious behavior, and take actions."

c) "to be remaining vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior, and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe"

- This option is grammatically incorrect. The phrase "to be remaining vigilant" is redundant and not idiomatic. It should be "to remain vigilant."

d) "to remain vigilant, report suspicious behavior, and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe"

- This option is grammatically correct and conveys the intended meaning clearly and concisely. It uses parallel structure and emphasizes the necessary actions to be taken.

e) "to be more vigilant in reporting suspicious behavior and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe"

- This option is also grammatically correct, but it introduces the comparative "more vigilant" without a clear basis for comparison. It is not necessary to specify "more" vigilant when the original sentence already emphasizes the need for vigilance.

Conclusion:

Option d) "to remain vigilant, report suspicious behavior, and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe" is the most appropriate choice as it maintains parallel structure and conveys the intended meaning clearly and concisely.
Free Test
Community Answer
Warning that terrorists remain determined to strike the country, senio...
There are two main problems with the original sentence:
(1) The government authorities urged citizens to do three things: remain vigilant, report suspicious behavior, and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe. Consequently, these three requests from the government need to be parallel. In this case, each command should be in the infinitive form (e.g., to remain, to report, and to take). The original sentence wrongly constructs the phrase taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe such that it modifies the two previous actions. Instead, this phrase should reflect the fact that taking actions... is a third action that the government is urging citizens to take. In short, the three actions that the government is urging are not parallel and they should be.
(2) taking actions necessary... illogically modifies the command to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior because these two actions would not speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe. In other words, it does not make sense that remaining vigilant and reporting suspicious behavior (two actions that would occur before an attack) would be modified such that these are actions that speed up the recovery from an attack.
  1. The three actions that the government urged are not parallel (i.e., to remain is not parallel with taking); the word necessary is not needed
  2. The three actions that the government urged are not parallel (i.e., to remain is not parallel with reporting and take)
  3. The three actions that the government urged are not parallel (i.e., to remain is not parallel with reporting and taking); the word necessary is not needed
  4. The sentence is correctly constructed as the three actions that the government urged are parallel; the un-needed word necessary is omitted
  5. The meaning of the original sentence is distorted as this sentence indicates that the government asked citizens to be more vigilant in reporting suspicious behavior (a single command) while the original sentence separated the command to remain vigilant and the command to report suspicious behavior; the three actions that the government urged are not parallel
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Similar GMAT Doubts

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.Inferring from the passage, which of the following constituted an ethical justification for SWIFT complying with the government?

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.The author implies that which of the following most likely occurred as a result of the news stories that ran in June 2006

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.Which of the following can be inferred from the passage?

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the question as follow.Shortly after September 11, 2001, the United States began requesting additional financial information about persons of interest by subpoenaing records located at the SWIFT banking consortium. SWIFT, which routes trillions of dollars a day, faced an ethical dilemma: fight the subpoenas in order to protect member privacy and the groups reputation for the highest level of confidentiality, or, comply and provide information about thousands of financial communications in the hope that lives will be saved. SWIFT decided to comply in secret, but in late June 2006, four major U.S. newspapers disclosed SWIFTs compliance. This sparked a heated public debate over the ethics of SWIFTs decision to reveal ostensibly confidential financial communications.Analyzing the situation in hindsight, three ethical justifications existed for not complying with the Treasury Departments requests. First, SWIFT needed to uphold its long-standing values of confidentiality, non-disclosure, and institutional trust. The second ethical reason against SWIFTs involvement came with inadequate government oversight as the Treasury Department failed to construct necessary safeguards to ensure the privacy of the data. Third, international law must be upheld and one could argue quite strongly that the governments use of data breached some parts of international law.Although SWIFT executives undoubtedly considered the aforementioned reasons for rejecting the governments subpoena, three ethical justifications for complying existed. First, it could be argued that the program was legal because the United States government possesses the authority to subpoena records stored within its territory and SWIFT maintained many of its records in Virginia. Second, it is entirely possible that complying with the governments subpoena thwarted another catastrophic terrorist attack that would have cost lives and dollars. Third, cooperating with the government did not explicitly violate any SWIFT policies due to the presence of a valid subpoena. However, the extent of cooperation certainly surprised many financial institutions and sparked some outrage and debate within the financial community.While SWIFT had compelling arguments both for agreeing and refusing to cooperate with the U.S. government program, even in hindsight, it is impossible to judge with certitude the wisdom and ethics of SWIFTs decision to cooperate as we still lack answers to important questions such as: what information did the government want? What promises did the government make about data confidentially? What, if any, potentially impending threats did the government present to justify its need for data?Q.The author suggests which of the following is the most appropriate conclusion of an analysis of the ethics of SWIFTs decision?

Top Courses for GMAT

Warning that terrorists remain determined to strike the country, senior government officials urged citizens to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe should terrorists succeed in launching an attack.a)to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheb)to remain vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophec)to be remaining vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior, and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophed)to remain vigilant, report suspicious behavior, and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophee)to be more vigilant in reporting suspicious behavior and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Warning that terrorists remain determined to strike the country, senior government officials urged citizens to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe should terrorists succeed in launching an attack.a)to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheb)to remain vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophec)to be remaining vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior, and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophed)to remain vigilant, report suspicious behavior, and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophee)to be more vigilant in reporting suspicious behavior and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2025 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Warning that terrorists remain determined to strike the country, senior government officials urged citizens to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe should terrorists succeed in launching an attack.a)to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheb)to remain vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophec)to be remaining vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior, and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophed)to remain vigilant, report suspicious behavior, and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophee)to be more vigilant in reporting suspicious behavior and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Warning that terrorists remain determined to strike the country, senior government officials urged citizens to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe should terrorists succeed in launching an attack.a)to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheb)to remain vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophec)to be remaining vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior, and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophed)to remain vigilant, report suspicious behavior, and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophee)to be more vigilant in reporting suspicious behavior and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Warning that terrorists remain determined to strike the country, senior government officials urged citizens to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe should terrorists succeed in launching an attack.a)to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheb)to remain vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophec)to be remaining vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior, and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophed)to remain vigilant, report suspicious behavior, and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophee)to be more vigilant in reporting suspicious behavior and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Warning that terrorists remain determined to strike the country, senior government officials urged citizens to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe should terrorists succeed in launching an attack.a)to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheb)to remain vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophec)to be remaining vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior, and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophed)to remain vigilant, report suspicious behavior, and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophee)to be more vigilant in reporting suspicious behavior and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Warning that terrorists remain determined to strike the country, senior government officials urged citizens to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe should terrorists succeed in launching an attack.a)to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheb)to remain vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophec)to be remaining vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior, and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophed)to remain vigilant, report suspicious behavior, and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophee)to be more vigilant in reporting suspicious behavior and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Warning that terrorists remain determined to strike the country, senior government officials urged citizens to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe should terrorists succeed in launching an attack.a)to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheb)to remain vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophec)to be remaining vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior, and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophed)to remain vigilant, report suspicious behavior, and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophee)to be more vigilant in reporting suspicious behavior and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Warning that terrorists remain determined to strike the country, senior government officials urged citizens to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe should terrorists succeed in launching an attack.a)to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheb)to remain vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophec)to be remaining vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior, and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophed)to remain vigilant, report suspicious behavior, and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophee)to be more vigilant in reporting suspicious behavior and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Warning that terrorists remain determined to strike the country, senior government officials urged citizens to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophe should terrorists succeed in launching an attack.a)to remain vigilant and report suspicious behavior, taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheb)to remain vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophec)to be remaining vigilant, reporting suspicious behavior, and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophed)to remain vigilant, report suspicious behavior, and take actions to speed up the recovery from an economic catastrophee)to be more vigilant in reporting suspicious behavior and taking actions necessary to speed up the recovery from an economic catastropheCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
Explore Courses for GMAT exam

Top Courses for GMAT

Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev