BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

question S/V agreement -- need expert help

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

question S/V agreement -- need expert help

by voodoo_child » Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:48 am
Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings IS indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.

Shouldnt the verb be "are" ? The subject is "the return on X and profitability for Y"

Correct?
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

by aspirant2011 » Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:21 am
voodoo_child wrote:Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings IS indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.

Shouldnt the verb be "are" ? The subject is "the return on X and profitability for Y"

Correct?
I also feel that the verb should have been are
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
Thanked: 114 times
Followed by:12 members

by patanjali.purpose » Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:36 am
voodoo_child wrote:Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings IS indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.

Shouldnt the verb be "are" ? The subject is "the return on X and profitability for Y"

Correct?
Normally subject of a clause will not be part of a prepositional phrase - here 'on assets and profitability per employee' is a prepositional phrase.

Moreover, the clause wants to emphasize on 'THE RETURN' and therefore its the subject.

Since THE RETURN is signular IS is ok.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

by aspirant2011 » Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:48 am
patanjali.purpose wrote:
voodoo_child wrote:Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings IS indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.

Shouldnt the verb be "are" ? The subject is "the return on X and profitability for Y"

Correct?
Normally subject of a clause will not be part of a prepositional phrase - here 'on assets and profitability per employee' is a prepositional phrase.

Moreover, the clause wants to emphasize on 'THE RETURN' and therefore its the subject.

Since THE RETURN is signular IS is ok.
Hi Patanjali,

Can you please explain the same in little bit more detail?
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
Thanked: 114 times
Followed by:12 members

by patanjali.purpose » Fri Sep 02, 2011 11:09 am
aspirant2011 wrote:
patanjali.purpose wrote:
voodoo_child wrote:Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings IS indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.

Shouldnt the verb be "are" ? The subject is "the return on X and profitability for Y"

Correct?
Normally subject of a clause will not be part of a prepositional phrase - here 'on assets and profitability per employee' is a prepositional phrase.

Moreover, the clause wants to emphasize on 'THE RETURN' and therefore its the subject.

Since THE RETURN is signular IS is ok.
Hi Patanjali,

Can you please explain the same in little bit more detail?
Example 1 (OG12):
Fossils of the arm of a sloth, found in Puerto Rico in 1991, have been dated at 34 million years old, making the sloth the earliest known mammal on... (of the arm of a sloth =/= subject as its a prep phrase; subject is Fossils and therefore the verb is 'have been'

Example 2 (source: https://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subject.htm)
The subject of a verb will never be part of a prepositional phrase. A prepositional phrase begins with a preposition [in, on, at, between, among, etc.] and ends with a noun, pronoun, or gerund. Look at these examples of prepositional phrases:

in the dirty bathtub

on the bumpy road

at home

between us

among the empty pizza boxes

without crying

Hope it helps.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by voodoo_child » Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:15 pm
patanjali.purpose wrote:
voodoo_child wrote:Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings IS indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.

Shouldnt the verb be "are" ? The subject is "the return on X and profitability for Y"

Correct?
Normally subject of a clause will not be part of a prepositional phrase - here 'on assets and profitability per employee' is a prepositional phrase.

Moreover, the clause wants to emphasize on 'THE RETURN' and therefore its the subject.

Since THE RETURN is signular IS is ok.
Ok. If I go by that logic, and also if I break the parallelism,

the return on assets and on profitability X => doesnt sound logical to me.

BTW, the idea of "return on X and profitability per employee" can be considered as a singular concept. May be that could be the reason. I am not sure and that's why I asked for an expert to comment.


Voodoo
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:30 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:2 members

by ColumbiaVC » Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:50 pm
Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings IS indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.

I am confused with "those" and also is there a comparison issue? (Return compared to companies that were not privatized).

[spoiler][/spoiler]
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

by aspirant2011 » Sat Sep 03, 2011 7:28 am
patanjali.purpose wrote:
aspirant2011 wrote:
patanjali.purpose wrote:
voodoo_child wrote:Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings IS indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.

Shouldnt the verb be "are" ? The subject is "the return on X and profitability for Y"

Correct?
Normally subject of a clause will not be part of a prepositional phrase - here 'on assets and profitability per employee' is a prepositional phrase.

Moreover, the clause wants to emphasize on 'THE RETURN' and therefore its the subject.

Since THE RETURN is signular IS is ok.
Hi Patanjali,

Can you please explain the same in little bit more detail?
Example 1 (OG12):
Fossils of the arm of a sloth, found in Puerto Rico in 1991, have been dated at 34 million years old, making the sloth the earliest known mammal on... (of the arm of a sloth =/= subject as its a prep phrase; subject is Fossils and therefore the verb is 'have been'

Example 2 (source: https://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subject.htm)
The subject of a verb will never be part of a prepositional phrase. A prepositional phrase begins with a preposition [in, on, at, between, among, etc.] and ends with a noun, pronoun, or gerund. Look at these examples of prepositional phrases:

in the dirty bathtub

on the bumpy road

at home

between us

among the empty pizza boxes

without crying

Hope it helps.
Thanks a lot Patanjali, it was indeed a good link and nice explanation :-)
Top
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2567
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
Thanked: 712 times
Followed by:550 members
GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:42 am
Just got a PM.

To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "return on profitability per employee." So for me the initial sentence must be in the plural, i.e. the correct version should be "return [...] and profitability [...] are"

You can also spot another error here, since they "conclude that the return and profitability are indistinguishable from those that were not privatized." This should be "the return and profitability are indistinguishable from those of companies that were not privatized at all." In the original sentence, we're matching "return and profitability" with "companies," which doesn't work.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:46 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by krishp84 » Sun Sep 04, 2011 8:51 am
DanaJ wrote:Just got a PM.

To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "return on profitability per employee." So for me the initial sentence must be in the plural, i.e. the correct version should be "return [...] and profitability [...] are"

You can also spot another error here, since they "conclude that the return and profitability are indistinguishable from those that were not privatized." This should be "the return and profitability are indistinguishable from those of companies that were not privatized at all." In the original sentence, we're matching "return and profitability" with "companies," which doesn't work.
The original sentence is correct.

Skeleton of the sentence -

1.1) Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business,
1.2) Yan Guo of Peking University and
1.3) Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong
conclude that
2.1) the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies [that have undergone partial share offerings]
2.2.1-COMPARISON) IS indistinguishable from
2.2) those that were not privatised at all.

"is indistinguishable from" is correct in this case because of THE in 2.1)
If there is no "THE" in (2.1), then "are indistinguishable from" is correct.

Btw - the source of this sentence - https://www.economist.com/node/21528262
Top
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2567
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
Thanked: 712 times
Followed by:550 members
GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Sun Sep 04, 2011 9:02 pm
I'm not convinced, to be honest. What is the subject here? Is it "the return" or is it "the return and profitability"? Again, I don't believe there is such a thing as a "return on profitability." Or maybe I'm missing something? :)
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 2:46 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by krishp84 » Mon Sep 05, 2011 8:11 am
DanaJ wrote:I'm not convinced, to be honest. What is the subject here? Is it "the return" or is it "the return and profitability"?
Subject - the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies
IS - linking verb
Frankly speaking, I am not a grammar fan. So do not like the term "linking verb", but it conveys the correct meaning in this context.
DanaJ wrote:Again, I don't believe there is such a thing as a "return on profitability."
Yes - That is correct. There is no such thing as a "return on profitability.". One of the correct usages will be "return to profitability" because "profitability" is the "ability to earn a profit". So, in this case we may use "return on sales per employee" or anything that makes sense contextually.

One of the correct versions of the sentence avoiding the wrong idiom will be -
Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and sales per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings is indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.
Or maybe I'm missing something? :)

@voodoo_child - Why do you not quote the source of the questions or at least mention that you do not know the source? This is a sharing forum. So please put the source if you know or mention the source as unknown. That way no one will be left guessing. The article was hardly 2 or 3 days old.
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1