Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
A. Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
B. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.
C. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past.
D. Executives’ being heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear.
E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
SC
This topic has expert replies
B seems to be wrong for 2 reasons -
especially one - one can refer to course of action or executive
misinterpreting ones - ones is ambigious here
I think E is correct. ['likely to' is correct, miss and misinterpret parallel]
ans E
whats OA?
especially one - one can refer to course of action or executive
misinterpreting ones - ones is ambigious here
I think E is correct. ['likely to' is correct, miss and misinterpret parallel]
ans E
whats OA?
ranji
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:52 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
I like C also, but "it" is consfusing. Does "it" refers to trouble or action, its really far from action. But everything else looks wrong.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 2:59 pm
- Location: Mississippi
- Thanked: 21 times
- Followed by:3 members
The answer is E.
A -- Terrible! What is 'heavy commitment'? what is 'it' referring to? Wrong.
B -- The first part of the sentence reads well, but the last part of the sentence is out of order. Wrong.
C -- A big ambiguous 'it' appears again at the end of the sentence. What is it referring to? Nothing really. It's wrong.
D -- misinterpreting is in gerund form, this is incorrect. Also 'executives' being heavily committed is the opposite of concise. You could just say, executives' commitment, or better yet, committed executives. Wrong.
E is correct. In proper order, no agreement problems, no awkward constructions, and no pronouns without a reference.
A -- Terrible! What is 'heavy commitment'? what is 'it' referring to? Wrong.
B -- The first part of the sentence reads well, but the last part of the sentence is out of order. Wrong.
C -- A big ambiguous 'it' appears again at the end of the sentence. What is it referring to? Nothing really. It's wrong.
D -- misinterpreting is in gerund form, this is incorrect. Also 'executives' being heavily committed is the opposite of concise. You could just say, executives' commitment, or better yet, committed executives. Wrong.
E is correct. In proper order, no agreement problems, no awkward constructions, and no pronouns without a reference.
Verbal Tutor