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

Redeem

Companies, investors, and governments must

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

Companies, investors, and governments must

by aspirant2011 » Tue May 17, 2011 6:40 am
Companies, investors, and governments must relearn the guiding principles of value creation if they are to defend against future economic crises.

A. Companies, investors, and governments must relearn the guiding principles of value creation if they are to defend against future economic crises.
B. Companies, investors, along with governments must relearn the guidingprinciples of value creation if it is to defend against future economic crises.
C. Companies, as well as investors and governments, must relearn the guiding principles of value creation if they are to defend from future economic crises.
D. Companies, investors, and governments must relearn the guiding principles of value creation if these are to defend from future economic crises.
E. Companies, investors, and governments must relearn the guiding principles of value creation if future economic crises are to be defended.

[spoiler]OA: Isn't this "they" in option A ambiguous?????[/spoiler]
Last edited by aspirant2011 on Tue May 17, 2011 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Thanked: 474 times
Followed by:365 members

by VivianKerr » Tue May 17, 2011 6:50 am
The subject is compound: "companies, investors, and governments" and therefore plural.

"They" is referring to the ENTIRE subject, just as "must relearn" is the verb that applies to the entire subject.

Ask yourself: who is logically "defending against"? The answer is all 3 - the companies, the investors, AND governments.

The plural pronoun to replace "companies, investors, and governments" is "they."

EASIER EXAMPLE:

Lisa, Jim, and Suzanne must stop cheating off each other if they are to improve their grades.

"they" refers back to the compound "Lisa, Jim, and Suzanne."
Vivian Kerr
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles

Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]

Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"! :-)
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

by aspirant2011 » Tue May 17, 2011 6:52 am
VivianKerr wrote:The subject is compound: "companies, investors, and governments" and therefore plural.

"They" is referring to the ENTIRE subject, just as "must relearn" is the verb that applies to the entire subject.

Ask yourself: who is logically "defending against"? The answer is all 3 - the companies, the investors, AND governments.

The plural pronoun to replace "companies, investors, and governments" is "they."

EASIER EXAMPLE:

Lisa, Jim, and Suzanne must stop cheating off each other if they are to improve their grades.

"they" refers back to the compound "Lisa, Jim, and Suzanne."
Hi Vivian,

Thanks for your post :-)........actually I am getting confused on "they" refering to "guiding principles" :-(
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Thanked: 474 times
Followed by:365 members

by VivianKerr » Tue May 17, 2011 9:06 am
Oh, gotcha!

"guiding principles" is the object of the sentence. And the word "if" here indicates we are referring back to the original subject.

Think of it like:
"A must relearn B if A is to do C."

If we switched the clauses, the sentence would still make sense:
"If A is to do C, A must relearn B."

Also, in context, it is illogical for "principles to "defend" something. Things don't "defend." People and institutions "defend."

There is only pronoun ambiguity is a pronoun could LOGICALLY refer to more than one thing.
Vivian Kerr
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles

Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]

Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"! :-)
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

by aspirant2011 » Tue May 17, 2011 9:20 am
VivianKerr wrote:Oh, gotcha!

"guiding principles" is the object of the sentence. And the word "if" here indicates we are referring back to the original subject.

Think of it like:
"A must relearn B if A is to do C."

If we switched the clauses, the sentence would still make sense:
"If A is to do C, A must relearn B."

Also, in context, it is illogical for "principles to "defend" something. Things don't "defend." People and institutions "defend."

There is only pronoun ambiguity is a pronoun could LOGICALLY refer to more than one thing.
thanks a lot Vivian :)
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:27 am
Thanked: 3 times

by boazkhan » Tue May 17, 2011 10:50 pm
Hi Vivian,
Can you please explain what's wrong with E?

Is choice E wrong because of ... future economic crises are to be defended and we need an is?



Thanks,
B
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Thanked: 474 times
Followed by:365 members

by VivianKerr » Wed May 18, 2011 6:21 am
E is passive voice.

"are to be defended."

The "crises" are BEING defended, so they are the object of the sentence. We need who or what is DOING the defending to come first.
Vivian Kerr
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles

Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]

Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"! :-)
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:10 am
Thanked: 45 times
Followed by:2 members

by sameerballani » Wed May 18, 2011 7:18 am
Hi Vivian,
Could you please explain why option E is wrong.

Is it because it uses passive construction whereas option A uses active voice?
Am i correct or is there any other reason?

Thanks

Oh!! i didn't see the complete thread. Thanks.. And i hope there is no other reason.
Top
User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 9:05 am

by navee » Thu May 19, 2011 10:17 am
hi sameerballani

Option E is wrong

Companies, investors, and governments must relearn the guiding principles of value creation if future economic crises are to be defended.

this option totally changes the meaning . It says Economic crises are the main subject and are to be defended but we know that the sentence is talking about compound subject - "companies, investors, and governments" .


-navee
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:10 am
Thanked: 45 times
Followed by:2 members

by sameerballani » Sat May 21, 2011 3:02 pm
VivianKerr wrote:E is passive voice.

"are to be defended."

The "crises" are BEING defended, so they are the object of the sentence. We need who or what is DOING the defending to come first.
Hi,
Can we use were to be defended in this case. I understand that its generally used for the hypothetical situation. But i am confused how to identify what is to be used when. If you could please explain.

Thanks
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Tue May 24, 2011 5:17 am
sameerballani wrote:
VivianKerr wrote:E is passive voice.

"are to be defended."

The "crises" are BEING defended, so they are the object of the sentence. We need who or what is DOING the defending to come first.
Hi,
Can we use were to be defended in this case. I understand that its generally used for the hypothetical situation. But i am confused how to identify what is to be used when. If you could please explain.

Thanks
i can't tell for sure, but it seems that you're trying to approach this issue from the standpoint of grammar rather than meaning. if that is what you're doing, then it will be impossible for you to understand active vs. passive (and it will also be impossible for you to understand verb tenses).
ACTIVE vs. PASSIVE is a MEANING ISSUE.
(VERB TENSES are also a MEANING ISSUE.)
These are *NOT* grammar issues!

--

make sure that you understand the significance of the passive voice vs. the active voice.

the active voice means that the subject is the doer or agent of the action.
e.g.
i moved to chicago --> i made the decision to move to chicago myself, for my own reasons.


the passive voice means that the subject is the target or recipient of the action -- i.e., that the action is done to the subject.
e.g.
i was moved to chicago --> someone else, e.g., my employer, made me move to chicago; it wasn't my decision.

--

using the above considerations, you'll realize that (e) means that people are actually trying to defend the crises themselves. that's not grammatically incorrect, but its meaning is ridiculous.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:10 am
Thanked: 45 times
Followed by:2 members

by sameerballani » Tue May 24, 2011 6:20 am
lunarpower wrote:
sameerballani wrote:
VivianKerr wrote:E is passive voice.

"are to be defended."

The "crises" are BEING defended, so they are the object of the sentence. We need who or what is DOING the defending to come first.
Hi,
Can we use were to be defended in this case. I understand that its generally used for the hypothetical situation. But i am confused how to identify what is to be used when. If you could please explain.

Thanks
i can't tell for sure, but it seems that you're trying to approach this issue from the standpoint of grammar rather than meaning. if that is what you're doing, then it will be impossible for you to understand active vs. passive (and it will also be impossible for you to understand verb tenses).
ACTIVE vs. PASSIVE is a MEANING ISSUE.
(VERB TENSES are also a MEANING ISSUE.)
These are *NOT* grammar issues!

--

make sure that you understand the significance of the passive voice vs. the active voice.

the active voice means that the subject is the doer or agent of the action.
e.g.
i moved to chicago --> i made the decision to move to chicago myself, for my own reasons.


the passive voice means that the subject is the target or recipient of the action -- i.e., that the action is done to the subject.
e.g.
i was moved to chicago --> someone else, e.g., my employer, made me move to chicago; it wasn't my decision.

--

using the above considerations, you'll realize that (e) means that people are actually trying to defend the crises themselves. that's not grammatically incorrect, but its meaning is ridiculous.
Ok Ron, Thanks!!
So In Nutshell, You are saying that Before deciding what tense or voice we need to use, we need to check the meaning. On the basis on the meaning only we need to use the correct/applicable tense and voice.

Please Correct me if i am wrong or add if i am missing something.

Thanks
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Tue May 24, 2011 6:40 am
sameerballani wrote:Ok Ron, Thanks!!
So In Nutshell, You are saying that Before deciding what tense or voice we need to use, we need to check the meaning. On the basis on the meaning only we need to use the correct/applicable tense and voice.

Please Correct me if i am wrong or add if i am missing something.

Thanks
that's right -- although you should ALWAYS check the meaning, before you look at ANYTHING in the sentence. almost every one of the major SC error types is easier to identify if you are using the meaning of the sentence, and most of them are impossible to understand fully *without* the meaning.

for instance:
verb tense -- completely impossible without meaning
verb voice -- completely impossible without meaning
modifiers -- can be assigned according to grammar rules, but detemining whether the assignment is *correct* is impossible without meaning
pronouns -- are subject to grammar rules, but detemining whether the pronoun is *correct* is impossible without meaning
parallelism -- sometimes based on grammar, but you need meaning to figure out which items *should* be parallel in the first place
etc.

this is actually why the GMAT SC emphasizes these particular concepts -- because it is NOT MEANT to be a test of rules that can be memorized! it's meant to be a reasoning test that emphasizes ... reasoning (which is based upon the intended meaning of the sentence).
this is also why the GMAT SC largely *avoids* testing things that ARE purely mechanical, rules-based, and subject to memorization (e.g., spelling).

if you are approaching these sentences without FIRST determining the meaning of the sentence, then you are using exactly the whole kind of reasoning for which the test is intentionally designed NOT to work.

this post may be uncharacteristically blunt, but this is a point that needs to be made over and over and over and over and over again, because way too many people on this forum approach SC as if it were a giant math puzzle that's subject to entirely arbitrary rules.
it's not -- if you start to base your thinking around what the sentence is clearly intended to mean (all sentences will have a common-sense interpretation, regardless of how many errors are in the original version), then you will suddenly find most SC issues much easier to identify and understand.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:10 am
Thanked: 45 times
Followed by:2 members

by sameerballani » Tue May 24, 2011 6:51 am
lunarpower wrote:if you are approaching these sentences without FIRST determining the meaning of the sentence, then you are using exactly the whole kind of reasoning for which the test is intentionally designed NOT to work.
Thanks Ron
This is a great advice and even logical. And well said, My approach towards SC is mostly based on grammar.I will try to add the more of the meaning component in my approach.
Although i try to make sure that meaning of the Sentence is clear, but sometimes when i am lost in grammar rules, i end up being more confused and perplexed and hence probably choosing an option that is meaningless !!
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Thu May 26, 2011 1:40 pm
sameerballani wrote:
lunarpower wrote:if you are approaching these sentences without FIRST determining the meaning of the sentence, then you are using exactly the whole kind of reasoning for which the test is intentionally designed NOT to work.
Thanks Ron
This is a great advice and even logical. And well said, My approach towards SC is mostly based on grammar.I will try to add the more of the meaning component in my approach.
Although i try to make sure that meaning of the Sentence is clear, but sometimes when i am lost in grammar rules, i end up being more confused and perplexed and hence probably choosing an option that is meaningless !!
you should definitely do this. i.e., you should definitely start incorporating an increased awareness of the meaning of sentences -- you will find that *all* of the above error types suddenly become much easier to understand and judge.

slightly off-topic, but, frankly, i'm absolutely fascinated by the idea that people would consider grammar before meaning when reading in their non-native language.
here's what i mean:
when i read things in my non-native languages, it's extremely rare for me to understand all of the grammatical constructions -- but i can ALWAYS use common sense to figure out what the sentence is trying to say, and then, if i encounter a really confusing sentence construction, i can use that common-sense meaning to actually figure out how the construction must work!
in other words, the intended meaning of the sentence isn't something that's constrained by linguistic rules -- it's something that should be relatively easy to figure out even if you are reading a language whose grammar you don't totally understand, or if you are reading a sentence that is written incorrectly.

here's a rather extreme example:
freeway accident, turned over truck there is, make i going to be late 15 minutes
this is probably the wrong-est sentence that i could possibly ever write; i don't think there is a single piece of correct grammar in the entire sentence. however, the intended meaning is still quite obvious -- i.e., a truck turned over and caused an accident on the freeway, and so i am going to be 15 minutes late.
the same should be true when you are reading in your second language -- even if you don't understand the underlying grammatical constructions at all (or, significantly, if the sentence is written incorrectly!), the meaning of the sentence should still be quite clear. once you've established the meaning of the sentence, you should be able to use it as a platform from which to figure out everything else.

i literally can't even imagine reading in a second language using grammar above meaning -- that's just so much harder than it has to be. frankly, the fact that you could get that sort of approach to work even some of the time indicates that you are quite a smart guy!
but you should work better/more efficiently, not harder. (:
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron
Top
Post new topic Locked