Sentence Correction

+1 for C . the participle favorable to a noun?

Anyone with this reasoning?

To avoid confusion, you could read the sentence as follows and see if the meaning is intact
Asset allocators create portfolios intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets.

it also agrees with the infinitive 'to turn'

Choice A uses the incorrect idiom. It should be 'with intention of' doing something

IMO A is incorrect because of the way the modifier "with the intention..." is placed. I feel that choice A is essentially the following sentence:
Asset allocators create portfolios with the intention to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markers. (i removed the non-essential phrase - often in the form of...)

Now this sentence IMO is incorrect because the modifier "with the intention to ..." modifies the preceding noun - portfolios. If I understand the meaning of this sentence correctly, it intends to say 1: asset allocators create portfolios.
2: they do so with the intention to turn in good results.

This may have been correct sentence if there was a comma before "with the intention..." since then it would have modified the preceding clause. But right now with a comma, it acts as noun modifier and modifies the preceding noun.

I feel that "with the intention to" is correct idiomatic usage. In fact if you google this phrase, you will find several references in newsweek and wsj. I must admit that I found more references of "with the intention of verb-ing". So may be the latter is preferred usage. But I dont think we can say for sure that "with the intention to" is incorrect. Experts please help here. Is this idiom in question correct or incorrect

Choice C is correct here. Here the modifier has been changed to "intended..". It correctly modifies the preceding noun "portfolios". Basically in both choices A and C, the modifier modifies portfolios. In c the modification is correct. In a it is incorrect.

Portfolios do not have intention of showing good results.
Portfolios are intended to show good results.

This was my reasoning till I came across expert explanation at this link:
https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/ass ... t5523.html
Here Ron indicates that "yes, (a) implies that the allocators themselves, not the portfolios, will turn in good results. that doesn't make sense. " I think that if the sentence was reworded as follows, it would be correct because the asset allocators have the intention to turn in good results. (I also changed to turn to of turning

With the intention of turning in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets, asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of of mutual funds.

Experts please help.

Responding to a PM:

I agree that "with the intention to" is okay (though I also would generally prefer "with the intention of") and that the meaning of the sentence could still be logical if that intention 'belongs to' the investors (i.e. if the investors have the intention). But even if we credit that possibility, there's still of course also the other possible logical setup/meaning, in which the portfolios themselves are intended to turn in good results. (Remember that on SC, the test in no way promises that 4 of the 5 answers will contain errors: your job is just to pick the best option, no matter how many are technically error-free. This task is certainly a better model for real-life writing, since for any sentence you might write, there will be many error-free ways you could write it, but you still want to write it the bestway!)

Anyway, the important thing to realize is that we have absolutely no way of knowing which of these two meanings the sentence intended to communicate, since they're both logical. A common *mistake* people make is to assume that the "original" is necessarily a better cue as to the sentence's intended meaning (so in this case, the original setup may lead some to think that the sentence *wants* to communicate that it's the investors who have the intention), but keep in mind that essentially the "original" is chosen at random from whatever the five answer choices will be, and then whatever is chosen is just made answer choice (A). The "original" could just as well have said here "intended" rather than "with the intention," and if it had, that also should not skew you in one direction or another with respect to your thinking about the intended meaning. You just want to pick a sentence that has a logical meaning. If there are (as in this case) two possibilities with two different meanings -- both logical -- I'd go for the more concise one.

Still not able to resolve the issue between A and C.

Looking forward to hear something from Mr Mitch on this.

Regards.

mankey wrote:Still not able to resolve the issue between A and C.

Looking forward to hear something from Mr Mitch on this.

Regards.

Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds, with the intention to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets.
(A) with the intention
(B) the intention of which is
(C) intended
(D) and intending
(E) so intended as

Generally, a modifier surrounded by commas is NON-ESSENTIAL and can be removed without changing the basic meaning of the sentence.
Since the phrase often in the form of mutual funds is surrounded by commas -- and is thus NON-ESSENTIAL -- the modifiers in A and C refer not to this phrase but to the preceding CLAUSE (asset allocators create portfolios).

A prepositional modifier can serve as an ADJECTIVE or as an ADVERB.

Answer choice A, case 1: with the intention = ADJECTIVE
PORTFOLIOS WITH THE INTENTION to turn in good results.
No - PORTFOLIOS cannot have an INTENTION.

Answer choice A, case 2: with the intention = ADVERB
Asset allocators CREATE WITH THE INTENTION to turn in good results.
No -- the allocators themselves do not turn in good results; the PORTFOLIOS turn in good results.

Since neither option conveys the intended meaning, eliminate A.

Answer choice C:
Asset allocators create PORTFOLIOS INTENDED to turn in good results.
Here the meaning makes sense: the PORTFOLIOS that the allocators create are INTENDED to turn in good results.

The correct answer is C.

Please also note the following idiom issue: with the intention OF VERBing is typically preferred to with the intention TO + VERB.

e-GMAT wrote:Received a PM

Ashley has already responded to this query in a very detailed manner.

I would just like to add one minor thing here. I believe Choice A is incorrect because it is not clear what the modifier "with the intention..." modifies. It can apply both to portfolios and the action of asset allocators creating the portfolios.

If it applies to portfolios then it results in illogical meaning since portfolios do not have the intention to turn in good results.
If it applies to asset allocators, then it results in logical meaning - asset allocators create portfolios. They create these portfolios with the intention of turning in good profits...

Thus, choice A is incorrect since the modifier modification is ambiguous.

Choice C, the correct choice clarifies this reference by changing the modifier to verb-ed modifier. Now "intended to turn in..." modifies the preceding noun - portfolios. This implies:

Asset allocators create portfolios
Portfolios are intended to turn in...

Note how verb-ed modifier is derived from verb in passive voice. This is important distinction to note.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,

Payal

Hi Payal/Mitch,

In this question the noun before verb-ed modifier (intended) is funds. Now funds itself is a part of a different modifier. We are ignoring this modifier. Does it mean that verb-ed modifier can never modify a noun in another modifier and should always modify either the subject or object of the clause

Again, I believe, the use of verb-ed also leads to ambiguity. It is logical to say that
Mutual funds are intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets

I'm totally confused. Please help

Regards,
Vishal

In this question the noun before verb-ed modifier (intended) is funds. Now funds itself is a part of a different modifier. We are ignoring this modifier. Does it mean that verb-ed modifier can never modify a noun in another modifier and should always modify either the subject or object of the clause

.
Verbed modifier would modify noun before modifier because preceding modifier is a NON-ESSENTIAL modifier and hence sentence should make sense even when the modifier is removed.

Again, I believe, the use of verb-ed also leads to ambiguity. It is logical to say that
Mutual funds are intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets

Yes, sentence is trying to highlight a function of asset allocators i.e. they create portfolios that are intended to turn in good profits. If we go other way round then it would mean, asset allocators intended to turn in good profits CREATE portfolios. This means that otherwise portfolios ARE NOT created but that is not CORRECT. Gist is that asset allocators create those portfolios that are intended to turn in good profits

vikram4689 wrote:

In this question the noun before verb-ed modifier (intended) is funds. Now funds itself is a part of a different modifier. We are ignoring this modifier. Does it mean that verb-ed modifier can never modify a noun in another modifier and should always modify either the subject or object of the clause

.
Verbed modifier would modify noun before modifier because preceding modifier is a NON-ESSENTIAL modifier and hence sentence should make sense even when the modifier is removed.

It is clear that the modifier is non essential and removing it will not have any effect on the MEANING of the sentence. The question here is, what prevents 'intended' to modify funds. Is there an exception to the touch rule?

vikram4689 wrote:

Again, I believe, the use of verb-ed also leads to ambiguity. It is logical to say that
Mutual funds are intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets

Yes, sentence is trying to highlight a function of asset allocators i.e. they create portfolios that are intended to turn in good profits. If we go other way round then it would mean, asset allocators intended to turn in good profits CREATE portfolios. This means that otherwise portfolios ARE NOT created but that is not CORRECT. Gist is that asset allocators create those portfolios that are intended to turn in good profits

The ambiguity is the following
1st possible meaning:
Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds which are intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets.
So in this case we are saying that mutual funds are intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets.
2nd possible meaning
Asset allocators create portfolios which are intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets. These portfolios are often in the form of mutual fund

Hi Mitch/Payal,

Please share your thoughts

Regards,
Vishal

Ok i see that both of the statements( you mentioned in 2nd last post) are related to whether intended is modifying funds or portfolios. Considering your first sentence :-

Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds which are intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets.

Above construction has 2 clauses and are not connected using conjunction so this is INCORRECT. A comma is needed to enclose the modifier b/w commas and that will eventually turn this construction into a single clause. After removing the modifier sentence becomes
Asset allocators create portfolios intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets.
Since intended here modifies portfolios it SHOULD modify the same in the original sentence

vikram4689 wrote:Ok i see that both of the statements( you mentioned in 2nd last post) are related to whether intended is modifying funds or portfolios. Considering your first sentence :-

Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds which are intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets.

Above construction has 2 clauses and are not connected using conjunction so this is INCORRECT. A comma is needed to enclose the modifier b/w commas and that will eventually turn this construction into a single clause. After removing the modifier sentence becomes
Asset allocators create portfolios intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets.
Since intended here modifies portfolios it SHOULD modify the same in the original sentence

Hi Vikram,

My bad. My sentence formation was not grammatically correct. Let me put it this way

1st possible meaning:
Asset allocators create portfolios which are often in the form of mutual funds.These mutual funds are intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets.
2nd possible meaning
Asset allocators create portfolios which are intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets. These portfolios are often in the form of mutual fund

Expert help required.

Regards,
Vishal

You can refer to following to obviate any confusion

After removing the modifier sentence becomes
Asset allocators create portfolios intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets.
Since intended here modifies portfolios it SHOULD modify the same in the original sentence

vishal.pathak wrote:

vikram4689 wrote:Ok i see that both of the statements( you mentioned in 2nd last post) are related to whether intended is modifying funds or portfolios. Considering your first sentence :-

Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds which are intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets.

Above construction has 2 clauses and are not connected using conjunction so this is INCORRECT. A comma is needed to enclose the modifier b/w commas and that will eventually turn this construction into a single clause. After removing the modifier sentence becomes
Asset allocators create portfolios intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets.
Since intended here modifies portfolios it SHOULD modify the same in the original sentence

Hi Vikram,

My bad. My sentence formation was not grammatically correct. Let me put it this way

1st possible meaning:
Asset allocators create portfolios which are often in the form of mutual funds.These mutual funds are intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets.
2nd possible meaning
Asset allocators create portfolios which are intended to turn in good results in both "bull" and "bear" markets. These portfolios are often in the form of mutual fund

Expert help required.

Regards,
Vishal

EXPERTS, please help

Regards,
Vishal

I think egmat and the GMatguru have already given a wonderful explanation. You could always see them and get your doubts cleared.

Intended i got it wrong as i thought 'intended' modified the mutual funds which was wrong.

Intended modifies portfolios and thats the correct usage.

option A is wrong. 'With the intention to' might be correct in regular English but I do not think that this is correct in Gmat....