"it" refers to white house
so E

Shouldn't there be a semicolon after experts in the original sentence?

A. they assigned to do
---> they here refers to the experts which is changing the meaning. the white house assigned the work tho.
B. to be assigned doing
---> should be do. doing = progressive.
C. that was being assigned doing
---> should be do. doing = progressive.
D. assigned for doing
---> should be do. doing = progressive.
E. "it" refers to white house.....this is right


(E)

IMO D

Not sure between D and E.
If E is OA then it seems that something is missing in the sentence.

See the other posts, peope are not sure about OA:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/sc-chairperson-46000-20.html

https://www.beatthegmat.com/help-t27952.html

paes wrote:IMO D

Not sure between D and E.
If E is OA then it seems that something is missing in the sentence.

See the other posts, peope are not sure about OA:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/sc-chairperson-46000-20.html

https://www.beatthegmat.com/help-t27952.html

Hey Paes,

Can't we eliminate D atleast because "doing" is progressive?

What do you think?

Gurpinder wrote:

paes wrote:IMO D

Not sure between D and E.
If E is OA then it seems that something is missing in the sentence.

See the other posts, peope are not sure about OA:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/sc-chairperson-46000-20.html

https://www.beatthegmat.com/help-t27952.html

Hey Paes,

Can't we eliminate D atleast because "doing" is progressive?

What do you think?

Gurpinder,

I am now aware with any such rule.
progressive is not always wrong.

paes wrote:

Gurpinder wrote:

paes wrote:IMO D

Not sure between D and E.
If E is OA then it seems that something is missing in the sentence.

See the other posts, peope are not sure about OA:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/sc-chairperson-46000-20.html

https://www.beatthegmat.com/help-t27952.html

Hey Paes,

Can't we eliminate D atleast because "doing" is progressive?

What do you think?

Gurpinder,

I am now aware with any such rule.
progressive is not always wrong.

No no, what I meant was, since the sentence talks about something in 1994, using a progressive would be wrong?

One more for D. the lack of a comma or semi-colon before the underlined portion makes E awkward.

khojason wrote:In 1994 the white house named Dr Ruth R. Faden chairperson of the federal advisory committee of experts they assigned to do a report on the history and ethics of the government's radiation experiments on humans in the 1950's and 1960's.

A. they assigned to do
B. to be assigned doing
C. that was being assigned doing
D. assigned for doing
E. it assigned to do

[spoiler]Ans: E[/spoiler]



Can anyone explain how to get the correct answer of this question?

it would make sense for me if the correct answer is D because if its E, this ST has 2 subject...
the first one is "the white house named Dr Ruth R. Faden chairperson of the federal advisory committee of experts "
and the second one is "it"
if saying that its not that that this ST has 2 subjects so where is the verb for " the white house named Dr Ruth R. Faden chairperson of the federal advisory committee of experts "
where do you read this ST?

Is the OA D/E . Experts please suggest?

if OA is E then I don't think so sentence is correctly written because after experts there should be a semi colon...........whats the source of this question???????/

The reason there is no semicolon after experts is because the sentence intends to "imply" that (after experts).

Nevertheless, the least I would have expected E to be was:

it had assigned to do

p.s. Could the original poster please confirm that (s)he indeed encountered this question on GMATPrep; if that is the case and the OA is indeed E, this would give us a lot of food for thought.

khojason wrote:In 1994 the white house named Dr Ruth R. Faden chairperson of the federal advisory committee of experts they assigned to do a report on the history and ethics of the government's radiation experiments on humans in the 1950's and 1960's.

A. they assigned to do
B. to be assigned doing
C. that was being assigned doing
D. assigned for doing
E. it assigned to do

Hi all!

E is definitely the best choice. While "it" is technically ambiguous (both the White House and the Federal Advisory Committee of experts are possible antecedents), none of the other choices provide a better alternative. Remember, while the GMAT prefers non-ambiguous references, if the reference is clear from the context of the sentence then seemingly ambiguous references aren't considered ambiguous.

Since the White House "named", parallelism dictates that the White House also "assigned", making "it" non-ambiguous.

Idiomatically we can "do a report", so (E) is also the idiomatic winner. "assigned for doing a report" will never be correct on the GMAT (as an aside, "assigned to do a report" without the "it" would be fine and arguably superior to (E)).

Stuart Kovinsky wrote:

khojason wrote:In 1994 the white house named Dr Ruth R. Faden chairperson of the federal advisory committee of experts they assigned to do a report on the history and ethics of the government's radiation experiments on humans in the 1950's and 1960's.

A. they assigned to do
B. to be assigned doing
C. that was being assigned doing
D. assigned for doing
E. it assigned to do

Hi all!

E is definitely the best choice. While "it" is technically ambiguous (both the White House and the Federal Advisory Committee of experts are possible antecedents), none of the other choices provide a better alternative. Remember, while the GMAT prefers non-ambiguous references, if the reference is clear from the context of the sentence then seemingly ambiguous references aren't considered ambiguous.

Since the White House "named", parallelism dictates that the White House also "assigned", making "it" non-ambiguous.

Idiomatically we can "do a report", so (E) is also the idiomatic winner. "assigned for doing a report" will never be correct on the GMAT (as an aside, "assigned to do a report" without the "it" would be fine and arguably superior to (E)).

Kovinsky, thank, and please, help me more
you said that when we have to choose between FOR DOING and TO DO, TO DO is correct by standard of gmat grammar, not by standard of general grammar. in the general grammar book this matter is never mention. Is that right?. I see in many questions in OG books, TO DO is perfered to FOR DOING.

is my thinking correct? Kovinsky.