Beat The GMAT a GMAT & MBA community

+1 for C . the participle favorable to a noun?

Anyone with this reasoning?

To avoid confusion, you could read the sentence as follows and see if the meaning is intact
Asset allocators create portfolios intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets.

it also agrees with the infinitive 'to turn'

Choice A uses the incorrect idiom. It should be 'with intention of' doing something

IMO A is incorrect because of the way the modifier "with the intention..." is placed. I feel that choice A is essentially the following sentence:
Asset allocators create portfolios with the intention to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markers. (i removed the non-essential phrase - often in the form of...)

Now this sentence IMO is incorrect because the modifier "with the intention to ..." modifies the preceding noun - portfolios. If I understand the meaning of this sentence correctly, it intends to say 1: asset allocators create portfolios.
2: they do so with the intention to turn in good results.

This may have been correct sentence if there was a comma before "with the intention..." since then it would have modified the preceding clause. But right now with a comma, it acts as noun modifier and modifies the preceding noun.

I feel that "with the intention to" is correct idiomatic usage. In fact if you google this phrase, you will find several references in newsweek and wsj. I must admit that I found more references of "with the intention of verb-ing". So may be the latter is preferred usage. But I dont think we can say for sure that "with the intention to" is incorrect. Experts please help here. Is this idiom in question correct or incorrect

Choice C is correct here. Here the modifier has been changed to "intended..". It correctly modifies the preceding noun "portfolios". Basically in both choices A and C, the modifier modifies portfolios. In c the modification is correct. In a it is incorrect.

Portfolios do not have intention of showing good results.
Portfolios are intended to show good results.

This was my reasoning till I came across expert explanation at this link:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/asset-allocators-create-portfolios-often-in-the-form-of-t5523.html
Here Ron indicates that "yes, (a) implies that the allocators themselves, not the portfolios, will turn in good results. that doesn't make sense. " I think that if the sentence was reworded as follows, it would be correct because the asset allocators have the intention to turn in good results. (I also changed to turn to of turning

With the intention of turning in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets, asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of of mutual funds.

Experts please help.

Still not able to resolve the issue between A and C.

Looking forward to hear something from Mr Mitch on this.

Regards.

Hi Payal/Mitch,

In this question the noun before verb-ed modifier (intended) is funds. Now funds itself is a part of a different modifier. We are ignoring this modifier. Does it mean that verb-ed modifier can never modify a noun in another modifier and should always modify either the subject or object of the clause

Again, I believe, the use of verb-ed also leads to ambiguity. It is logical to say that
Mutual funds are intended to turn in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets

I'm totally confused. Please help

Regards,
Vishal

.
Verbed modifier would modify noun before modifier because preceding modifier is a NON-ESSENTIAL modifier and hence sentence should make sense even when the modifier is removed.


Yes, sentence is trying to highlight a function of asset allocators i.e. they create portfolios that are intended to turn in good profits. If we go other way round then it would mean, asset allocators intended to turn in good profits CREATE portfolios. This means that otherwise portfolios ARE NOT created but that is not CORRECT. Gist is that asset allocators create those portfolios that are intended to turn in good profits

_________________
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button

It is clear that the modifier is non essential and removing it will not have any effect on the MEANING of the sentence. The question here is, what prevents 'intended' to modify funds. Is there an exception to the touch rule?
The ambiguity is the following
1st possible meaning:
Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds which are intended to turn in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets.
So in this case we are saying that mutual funds are intended to turn in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets.
2nd possible meaning
Asset allocators create portfolios which are intended to turn in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets. These portfolios are often in the form of mutual fund

Hi Mitch/Payal,

Please share your thoughts

Regards,
Vishal

Ok i see that both of the statements( you mentioned in 2nd last post) are related to whether intended is modifying funds or portfolios. Considering your first sentence :-
Above construction has 2 clauses and are not connected using conjunction so this is INCORRECT. A comma is needed to enclose the modifier b/w commas and that will eventually turn this construction into a single clause. After removing the modifier sentence becomes
Asset allocators create portfolios intended to turn in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets.
Since intended here modifies portfolios it SHOULD modify the same in the original sentence

_________________
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button

Hi Vikram,

My bad. My sentence formation was not grammatically correct. Let me put it this way

1st possible meaning:
Asset allocators create portfolios which are often in the form of mutual funds.These mutual funds are intended to turn in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets.
2nd possible meaning
Asset allocators create portfolios which are intended to turn in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets. These portfolios are often in the form of mutual fund

Expert help required.

Regards,
Vishal

You can refer to following to obviate any confusion

_________________
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button

EXPERTS, please help

Regards,
Vishal

I think egmat and the GMatguru have already given a wonderful explanation. You could always see them and get your doubts cleared.

Intended i got it wrong as i thought 'intended' modified the mutual funds which was wrong.

Intended modifies portfolios and thats the correct usage.

option A is wrong. 'With the intention to' might be correct in regular English but I do not think that this is correct in Gmat....

_________________
IT IS TIME TO BEAT THE GMAT

LEARNING, APPLICATION AND TIMING IS THE FACT OF GMAT AND LIFE AS WELL... KEEP PLAYING!!!

Whenever you feel that my post really helped you to learn something new, please press on the 'THANK' button.