Welcome! Check out our free B-School Guides to learn how you compare with other applicants.
Login or Register
 

Noting that the company's network is vulnerable

This topic has 5 expert replies and 23 member replies
Goto page Previous
Bookmark
Previous Topic Next Topic
GMAT Kolaveri Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
Joined
23 Mar 2012
Posted:
286 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
59 times
Target GMAT Score:
730
Post Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:33 pm
patanjali.purpose wrote:
Noting that the company's network is vulnerable to viruses and spyware, the consultant has urged Infotech to upgrade its protections software, institute new policies for exchanging sensitive information, assembling a special team of information technology specialists to manage network security protocols

A) assembling a special team of information technology specialists to manage
B) assembling a special team of information technology specialists for managing
C) assembling a special team of information technology that manages
D) and assemble a special team of information technology specialists for managing
E) and assemble a special team of information technology specialists to manage

OA-E; VERITAS; WHY E BETTER THAN D?
First level, analysis shows that there is a list and "AND" is missing. Hence A,B,C ruled out.
Between D and E, E is the correct option bcoz purpose/intent should be expressed with "to infinitive" not "for" . I want to do MBA, I want to swim,

_________________
Regards and Thanks,
Vinoth@GMAT Kolaveri
https://www.facebook.com/GmatKolaveri
http://gmatkolaveri.tumblr.com/

Click the thank you button if you like my reply Smile

Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!
avik.ch GMAT Destroyer!
Joined
20 Apr 2011
Posted:
639 messages
Followed by:
26 members
Thanked:
141 times
Post Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:02 am
scholardream wrote:
but this means I have to care more about 'the meaning' of the SC rather than 'grammal' alone, right ?
Grammar and meaning are interdependent. Max Morenberg defines grammar as

"Grammar is a system that puts words together into meaningful units"

Quote:
Do you know this kinds of question appear much on actual GMAT ?
This question is inspired from Og-12 #15.


Hope this helps a bit, till Ron Sir replies your post.

venkart89 Just gettin' started!
Joined
06 Feb 2012
Posted:
16 messages
Target GMAT Score:
780
Post Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:50 am
Hi Lunarpower

I was confused with the option D & E, your explanation certainly threw light on the concept of "To + verb" and "For + verbing " ...

Thanks a lot...

_________________
800 is my lucky number.

http://cat4iimgmat4isb.blogspot.in

venkart89 Just gettin' started!
Joined
06 Feb 2012
Posted:
16 messages
Target GMAT Score:
780
Post Mon Mar 26, 2012 1:51 am
Yes this a model from OG!!!

avik.ch wrote:
scholardream wrote:
but this means I have to care more about 'the meaning' of the SC rather than 'grammal' alone, right ?
Grammar and meaning are interdependent. Max Morenberg defines grammar as

"Grammar is a system that puts words together into meaningful units"

Quote:
Do you know this kinds of question appear much on actual GMAT ?
This question is inspired from Og-12 #15.


Hope this helps a bit, till Ron Sir replies your post.

_________________
800 is my lucky number.

http://cat4iimgmat4isb.blogspot.in

GMAT/MBA Expert

lunarpower GMAT Instructor
Joined
03 Mar 2008
Posted:
2975 messages
Followed by:
1048 members
Thanked:
1728 times
GMAT Score:
800
Most Active Expert Most Responsive Expert Most Thanked Expert
Post Mon Mar 26, 2012 2:31 am
avik.ch wrote:
This question is inspired from Og-12 #15.
good look on finding that.

on the other hand, the context of OG12 #15 (which i'm not allowed to reproduce here) doesn't work with both expressions.

in that problem, the context is “to take charge of x” vs. “for taking charge of x”.
note that “taking charge of something” is NOT an ongoing process or general procedure -- it's a specific thing, that happens at a specific point in time, and either needs to be done or doesn't need to be done. it's sort of like succeeding to the presidency, or turning 18, or other such things that happen at a single point in time.
given that context, we must be talking about something that needs to be done -- a remote purpose. so, in the OG example, you need "to take charge" and not "for taking charge".

_________________
Ron is a Director of Curriculum Development at Manhattan GMAT. He has been teaching various standardized tests for almost 20 years.

He wears white after Labor Day, gets 55% of his calories from protein, and takes standardized tests for fun.

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron o en inglés o en español.

If you send Ron a private message, please allow 1-2 weeks for a response.

Learn more about ron

Thanked by: venkart89, avik.ch, thulsy
Free Manhattan GMAT online events - The first class of every online Manhattan GMAT course is free. Classes start every week.
thulsy Rising GMAT Star Default Avatar
Joined
02 Feb 2012
Posted:
42 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
6 times
Test Date:
July 2012
GMAT Score:
760
Post Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:07 pm
Great discussion! I had also been struggling with the "to do VS. doing" distinction, and thanks to Ron I am now clear. I'd like to share the following links that I have found very helpful:
A related question with Ron's input http://www.beatthegmat.com/gmat-prep-sc-new-genetic-evidence-t65000.html
Ron's Thursday lecture on Feb 16, 2012 http://www.manhattangmat.com/thursdays-with-ron.cfm

Ron, I have a question regarding the usage (the meaning - to be specific) of infinitives.
In the OG12 #15 sentence, who/which is meant to "take charge of computer security planning"?
NAS? the nation? a specific nongovernment organization?

Per OG explanation, "In the construction create … to take, the sense of to is in order to". If I understand correctly, OG says that "to take charge" is an adverbial modifier and thus the subject of the action (to take charge) is the subject of the main sentence (i.e. NAS). However, this seems not right to me...

I guess the issue is: Is "to take charge ..." a noun modifier or an adverbial modifier? If it is a noun modifier, how can we figure out the subject?

Below I list my current understanding to this issue (the subject of the to do action as a noun modifier), please kindly let me know if I am wrong or lacking any concept knowledge. Thanks.

(I) a book to read "someone will read the book", i.e. the book is the object
(this is the example in MGMAT SC guide, page 253)
(II) (on a Party, the host says) We have one more guest to come. "the guest will come", i.e. the guest is the subject
(this sentence is made by myself)

The MGMAT SC Guide says, "Often, when you modify a noun with an infinitive, that noun is not the implied subject of the infinitive." If I understand correctly, "often" is mostly, not always.

Per my above understanding, if I construe "to take charge" as a noun modifier following the noun
"a special nongovernment organization", can I assume that the organization is the subject who is to take charge?

tanviet GMAT Titan Default Avatar
Joined
20 May 2008
Posted:
1405 messages
Thanked:
16 times
Post Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:34 am
I have not understood the distiction between "for doing" and " to do" Which Ron said.

But, I see that whenever gmat force us to choose between "for doing" and " to do", "to do" is alway correct. This dose not mean that "for doing" is alway wrong. "for doing" can appear in correct answer in the paralel structure.

My takeaway is that "to do" is prefered to "for doing"

couple "to do" and "for doing" appear frequently on og books.

GMAT/MBA Expert

lunarpower GMAT Instructor
Joined
03 Mar 2008
Posted:
2975 messages
Followed by:
1048 members
Thanked:
1728 times
GMAT Score:
800
Most Active Expert Most Responsive Expert Most Thanked Expert
Post Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:53 am
thulsy wrote:
Per OG explanation, "In the construction create … to take, the sense of to is in order to". If I understand correctly, OG says that "to take charge" is an adverbial modifier and thus the subject of the action (to take charge) is the subject of the main sentence (i.e. NAS). However, this seems not right to me...
this sentence, the modifier is adverbial. you need to use the context of the sentence to make this determination, because, as you've noted in those other examples from the strategy guide, prepositional phrases can also modify nouns.

if the modifier is adverbial (= describes the entire preceding clause/action), then you don't need to worry about a precise “subject”. instead, as long as the modifier legitimately describes the preceding clause/action/sentence, it's legitimate.

for instance:
the stomach secretes acid to break up foods for digestion.
--> in this sentence, “to break up foods for digestion” most accurately describes the action of secreting acid. in other words, it doesn't have to be literally true that “the stomach breaks up foods” -- it only has to be true that the stomach performs some action whose purpose is to break up foods.
the same is true here for “taking charge”.

_________________
Ron is a Director of Curriculum Development at Manhattan GMAT. He has been teaching various standardized tests for almost 20 years.

He wears white after Labor Day, gets 55% of his calories from protein, and takes standardized tests for fun.

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron o en inglés o en español.

If you send Ron a private message, please allow 1-2 weeks for a response.

Learn more about ron

Thanked by: thulsy, arias
Free Manhattan GMAT online events - The first class of every online Manhattan GMAT course is free. Classes start every week.
tanviet GMAT Titan Default Avatar
Joined
20 May 2008
Posted:
1405 messages
Thanked:
16 times
Post Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:20 am
lunarpower wrote:
avik.ch wrote:
This question is inspired from Og-12 #15.
good look on finding that.

on the other hand, the context of OG12 #15 (which i'm not allowed to reproduce here) doesn't work with both expressions.

in that problem, the context is “to take charge of x” vs. “for taking charge of x”.
note that “taking charge of something” is NOT an ongoing process or general procedure -- it's a specific thing, that happens at a specific point in time, and either needs to be done or doesn't need to be done. it's sort of like succeeding to the presidency, or turning 18, or other such things that happen at a single point in time.
given that context, we must be talking about something that needs to be done -- a remote purpose. so, in the OG example, you need "to take charge" and not "for taking charge".
Thank you Ron,
Because some time "for doing " is right I can make a hard and fast rule as following:

TO DO SOMTHING TO DO is right

TO DO SOMETHING FOR DOING is wrong.

is that rule correct?

I see in most cases, above rule is correct. So, I decide to make the rule HARD AND FAST without thinking of meaning. Of course, I alway check meaning at the last step.

tanviet GMAT Titan Default Avatar
Joined
20 May 2008
Posted:
1405 messages
Thanked:
16 times
Post Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:49 am
I want to make clear the point I post previously

TO DO1 SOMETHING TO DO is right if TO DO modify TO DO1, showing the purpose of DO1.

I learn gmat to take MBA in USA

TO DO SOMETHING FOR DOING is right if DOING modify SOMETHING.

I make the rules for dancing.

is my thinking correct?

GMAT/MBA Expert

lunarpower GMAT Instructor
Joined
03 Mar 2008
Posted:
2975 messages
Followed by:
1048 members
Thanked:
1728 times
GMAT Score:
800
Most Active Expert Most Responsive Expert Most Thanked Expert
Post Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:49 am
duongthang wrote:
Thank you Ron,
Because some time "for doing " is right I can make a hard and fast rule as following:

TO DO SOMTHING TO DO is right

TO DO SOMETHING FOR DOING is wrong.

is that rule correct?

I see in most cases, above rule is correct. So, I decide to make the rule HARD AND FAST without thinking of meaning. Of course, I alway check meaning at the last step.
this post is self-contradictory: EITHER (1) you decide you're going to make this a “hard and fast rule”, OR (2) you consider the meaning.
you can't do both of these. if you allow that the meaning of the sentence can change the outcome, then it's not a hard and fast rule anymore. if it were a hard and fast rule, the meaning would be irrelevant.

in any case, i've seen a lot of your posts, and you seem to be on a mission to avoid thinking in just about any situation at all -- you are trying to create literally thousands of rules and minutiae that you can simply memorize and regurgitate.
it's going to be impossible for you to improve to any significant extent if that's your approach. sentence correction is about language, which fundamentally depends, at all times and for all purposes, on the message that the speaker is intended to convey. it's not a programming language or a mathematical rule set, with a unique fixed function for each character or expression; any approach that treats language in this way WILL fail (which is why it's on the gmat!).

in other words, if you are on a thread on which the meaning of some construction is explained, and your response is to try to make up a “hard and fast rule”, then you are both (1) ignoring what will actually solve the problems and (2) trying to approach them in a way that cannot possibly succeed.
that is all.

_________________
Ron is a Director of Curriculum Development at Manhattan GMAT. He has been teaching various standardized tests for almost 20 years.

He wears white after Labor Day, gets 55% of his calories from protein, and takes standardized tests for fun.

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron o en inglés o en español.

If you send Ron a private message, please allow 1-2 weeks for a response.

Learn more about ron

Free Manhattan GMAT online events - The first class of every online Manhattan GMAT course is free. Classes start every week.
iongmat Rising GMAT Star Default Avatar
Joined
24 May 2011
Posted:
81 messages
Thanked:
1 times
Target GMAT Score:
710
Post Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:12 am
As the following link suggests, urge would always be followed with infinitive:

http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/english-as-a-second-language/gerunds

The structure of the sentence is:

the consultant has urged Infotech TO X, Y and Z TO manage network security protocols.

For example you would say: I urge the two countries to come together to express solidarity.

Not: I urge the two countries to come together for expressing solidarity.

arias Just gettin' started! Default Avatar
Joined
23 Feb 2013
Posted:
3 messages
Post Sat Feb 23, 2013 11:19 am
Thanks Ron &b babybearmm for the wonderful discussion.

I have another question about the to domodifier.

CEO announced plans Wednesday to cut the company’s huge debt by selling nearly $12 billion in assets over the next 18 months.

BTW, this question is reversed from OG13-68.

I have two interpretations.
1. CEO announced ... to cut ( in this way, to cut show the propose of the announcement from the ceo)
2. CEO announced a plan to cut (in this way, CEO announced a plan, by means of this plan someone can ....)

I am not intent to challenge the OA, however, I am confused with above points.
Ron could you please help to enlight me for this one?

Arias

GMAT/MBA Expert

lunarpower GMAT Instructor
Joined
03 Mar 2008
Posted:
2975 messages
Followed by:
1048 members
Thanked:
1728 times
GMAT Score:
800
Most Active Expert Most Responsive Expert Most Thanked Expert
Post Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:45 pm
Quote:
BTW, this question is reversed from OG13-68.
"reversed"? like, you wrote something in the opposite order?
sorry, i don't understand

Quote:
I have two interpretations.
1. CEO announced ... to cut ( in this way, to cut show the propose of the announcement from the ceo)
2. CEO announced a plan to cut (in this way, CEO announced a plan, by means of this plan someone can ....)
ya, but only one of these is reasonable. clearly, no one is going to cut costs by just getting on a microphone and announcing a plan, so the only plausible interpretation is #2. that's why the sentence works.

remember that lots of grammatical constructions can do more than one thing. (they have to -- keep in mind that language has to have ways to express literally every single thing that someone might want to think or say).
in those cases, you may have to depend on common sense to determine how the construction works. and, of course, that's totally fine.

e.g.
I read the book on the table --> here, "on the table" is modifying the noun "book".
I read the book on the subway --> here, "on the subway" is modifying the action of reading the book.
from a purely grammar standpoint, "on xxxx" can modify either a noun or an action -- but, in each of these examples, only one of the two "possible" interpretations actually accords with common sense.

_________________
Ron is a Director of Curriculum Development at Manhattan GMAT. He has been teaching various standardized tests for almost 20 years.

He wears white after Labor Day, gets 55% of his calories from protein, and takes standardized tests for fun.

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron o en inglés o en español.

If you send Ron a private message, please allow 1-2 weeks for a response.

Learn more about ron

Thanked by: arias
Free Manhattan GMAT online events - The first class of every online Manhattan GMAT course is free. Classes start every week.
Goto page Previous

Best Conversation Starters
1 varun289 43 topics
2 greenwich 30 topics
3 sana.noor 22 topics
4 guerrero 20 topics
5 killerdrummer 18 topics
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

Most Active Experts
1 image description Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

 205 posts
2 image description Anju@Gurome

Gurome

 146 posts
3 image description GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

 145 posts
4 image description Jim@StratusPrep

Stratus Prep

 96 posts
5 image description David@VeritasPrep

Veritas Prep

 39 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts