Beat The GMAT a GMAT & MBA community

First of all, (C) is in the passive while (E) is not. While you can't eliminate a choice just for being in the passive, in an error-free active version is correct, it's probably better.

However, (C) and (D) alike share an error that is often overlooked: redundancy. Both choices contain both "previously" and "in the past." This is terribly and awfully redundant and repetitive! In fact, when you spot this kind of blatant redundancy, it's more than just a style-preference issue: you can eliminate those choices completely right away.

As to your "which" question regarding choices (D) and (E), in fact, the relative pronoun is not necessary. In fact, we very often use adjective clauses without relative pronouns in English, with no comma separating them from the term they're modifying. For example:

That story you wrote was very good.

Here "you wrote" is an adjective clause describing "story." While it might be clearer (especially in the case of a long relative clause, such as in the above OG question) to include a "that" before "you wrote," it's not required. If set off my commas, though, you'll always see a relative pronoun, most likely "which:"

That story, you wrote, was very good (wrong)
That story, which you wrote, was very good (right)

Hope that helps!

_________________
Experienced tutors, customized study plans, personalized service.

www.GothamTutors.com/adam.html

That's a great question!

As a general rule, it is considered better form not to split up a verb. Splitting infinitives is particularly egregious ("to boldly go . . ."), but aside from the word "not", it's usually better to leave all parts of the verb contiguous.

I don't know the source of this question, but it don't think it reflects well on that source that the correct answer, E, has the form:

. . . it would in the past have conceded to rivals.

I would avoid that in my own writing. Here, the words "in the past" split up the verb "would have conceded". I think either

. . . it would have conceded in the past to rivals.

. . . it would have conceded to rivals in the past.

is an improvement over the OA answer of this question; of these two, I prefer the latter, because it sounds better to have the indirect object ("to rivals") immediately following the verb. Even better, I would ditch the words "in the past" and use the word "previously" in its place:

. . . it previously would have conceded to rivals.

The verb is not split up, the indirect object immediate follows the verb, and the "in the past" idea is expressed succinctly in a single word. BAM! I like this final version much much better than the OA. Of course, remember, in GMAT SC, the goal is not to create the best possible version, but only to find the best of the five, and I grudgingly admit, (E) is the best of the five given this particular selection.

Does this make sense?

Mike

_________________
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
http://gmat.magoosh.com/

Grammatically, it's correct, but falls way short of GMAT standards. The only thing worse that using the passive voice in general is using the passive voice and omitting a subject explicitly mentioned already in the sentence. The words "the company" is the subject of the whole sentence, so there's something particularly awkward about phrasing the last part in a passive form which omits the action of the company.
The passive voice is minimally acceptable if the subject, the actor, is unknown, or if the entire emphasis is on the result of the action, not its cause. In this sentence, though, the actor is "the company" --- "the company" is the star of the sentence --- this is why it sounds so awkward to rephrase the last clause to avoid mentioning the company. It's like having an award ceremony for someone and not inviting them! It simply makes no sense to do that.

Does all this make sense? Please let me know if you have any more questions.

Mike

_________________
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
http://gmat.magoosh.com/

No. When the clause is worded actively, not passively, then the actor, the subject of the clause's verb, is the same as the actor of the sentence, the subject of the main verb --- "the company." By contrast, "the sales" are the object of the action of the verb "have conceded".

That's precisely the problem with "they" --- it's a plural pronoun referring to a singular antecedent: "the company." That's precisely why (A) and (B) are incorrect.

Mike

_________________
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
http://gmat.magoosh.com/

GMAC frequently places an adverb between a helping verb and the verb being helped. The following examples are all from OAs in the OG12:

are IN EFFECT told
have NEVER been sighted
can HARDLY be said
can CONSTANTLY change
have RECENTLY discovered
were EVENTUALLY exhibited
were FIRST aired
can QUICKLY analyze
would LATER make
are CLOSELY related
has ALREADY stimulated
is WIDELY accepted

Thus, would IN THE PAST have conceded is in keeping with GMAC's rules.

_________________
Mitch Hunt
GMAT Private Tutor and Instructor
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Thank" icon.
Contact me about long distance tutoring!

Dear angela_lovegmat,
The prepositional phrase "in the past" is a adverb phrase modifying the verb. Unlike noun modifiers, which under most conditions must obey the "modifier touch rule", verb modifiers have a little more flexibility. I would argue that in "...it would have conceded to rivals in the past" the phrase "in the past" still clearly refers to the verb "conceded", because "in the past" is inherently an adverbial phrase, and cannot modify a noun --- if we want to modify the noun "rivals," the phrase "rivals in the past" sounds incredibly awkward, much less elegant than "past rivals."

Does that make sense? Let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike

_________________
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
http://gmat.magoosh.com/