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

Redeem

Heavy commitment by an executive

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:53 pm
Thanked: 2 times

Heavy commitment by an executive

by jack.daniel » Wed May 01, 2013 6:54 pm
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.



Source: OG12, 101
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 308
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:51 am
Thanked: 16 times
Followed by:3 members

by Lifetron » Wed May 01, 2013 9:30 pm
IMO E
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 2:34 am
Location: Bengaluru, India
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:9 members

by Gowri@CrackVerbal » Thu May 02, 2013 5:53 am
Who is likely to miss signs or misinterpret them? The executive.
In option A, this anchoring is not well-made - i.e. A does not clearly say that the executive is likely to miss signs or misinterpret them.

Option B is structured this way: 'An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, <modifier>, makes missing signs of incipient trouble...' - this does not make any sense. What does 'executive... makes missing signs' mean?

What has worked well in the past? The course of action. So ideally, 'course of action' must be placed close to the modifier 'has worked well in the past'. In option C, the two are separated by a long modifier and it is not clear what the pronoun 'it' is referring to.

In option D, there is no parallelism in the latter half between 'miss' and 'misinterpreting'. Secondly, 'executives' being...' is a possessive. i.e. 'executives'' cannot be the antecedent of the pronoun 'them'.

Thus, E is the right answer.
Gowri N Kishore
Verbal Specialist & Mentor
CrackVerbal

If you find my posts useful, please hit the 'Thank' button. :)

Get a FREE Profile Evaluation from CrackVerbal experts!
https://applications.crackverbal.com/fre ... valuation/

Attend Live, Instructor-led Online classes by 99th p'cile instructors!
https://gmat.crackverbal.com/gmat-course ... ve-course/
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
Thanked: 1443 times
Followed by:247 members

by ceilidh.erickson » Fri May 03, 2013 12:07 pm
There are several topics tested in this problem. Gowri has correctly identified several of these, but I wanted to point out a few more:

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.
The first "it" refers to "commitment," but the second "it" is a general-state-of-being pronoun. We can't use the same pronoun to refer to two different things in a given sentence. Gowri is right that a commitment can't make something likely to do something else.

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.
"An executive... makes missing signs... likely" doesn't make any sense. The modifier "when they do appear" is also in the wrong place - it should be placed after "ones." In this position, it's not clear what "they" refers to.

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.
Gowri's explanation is great.

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.
There are a couple of pronoun issues here. One (as Gowri mentioned) is that "executives'" is possessive, and cannot be the antecedent of a pronoun. The other problem is that the first "them" is trying to refer to executives, but the second "them" is trying to refer to "signs." We can't switch antecedents - all versions of the same pronoun (they/them/their) have to refer to the same thing.

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.
This is one of the few exceptions to the rule "always avoid the word being in SC." Here, the meaning is most clear when the phrase "being committed" is the subject of the sentence (this is very rarely the case). Pronouns, parallelism, and meaning all check out, so we have no choice but to pick E.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
Thanked: 1443 times
Followed by:247 members

by ceilidh.erickson » Fri May 03, 2013 12:32 pm
For more on switching pronoun referents, see:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/bear-markets ... tml#549435
https://www.beatthegmat.com/over-the-pas ... tml#554150
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 10:53 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by jack.daniel » Sat May 04, 2013 2:53 am
ceilidh.erickson wrote:There are several topics tested in this problem. Gowri has correctly identified several of these, but I wanted to point out a few more:

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.
The first "it" refers to "commitment," but the second "it" is a general-state-of-being pronoun. We can't use the same pronoun to refer to two different things in a given sentence. Gowri is right that a commitment can't make something likely to do something else.

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.
"An executive... makes missing signs... likely" doesn't make any sense. The modifier "when they do appear" is also in the wrong place - it should be placed after "ones." In this position, it's not clear what "they" refers to.

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.
Gowri's explanation is great.

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.
There are a couple of pronoun issues here. One (as Gowri mentioned) is that "executives'" is possessive, and cannot be the antecedent of a pronoun. The other problem is that the first "them" is trying to refer to executives, but the second "them" is trying to refer to "signs." We can't switch antecedents - all versions of the same pronoun (they/them/their) have to refer to the same thing.

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.
This is one of the few exceptions to the rule "always avoid the word being in SC." Here, the meaning is most clear when the phrase "being committed" is the subject of the sentence (this is very rarely the case). Pronouns, parallelism, and meaning all check out, so we have no choice but to pick E.

thanks sowri and ceilidh.erickson...

I understood the reasons for eliminating A, B, C and D.

I have 2 questions in addition:
1. we cant use same pronoun to refer 2 things. So, to avoid this ambiguity should we repeat the noun?
2. Do A and D have similar pronoun ambiguity error?


thanks....
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
Thanked: 1443 times
Followed by:247 members

by ceilidh.erickson » Sat May 04, 2013 7:45 am
1. we cant use same pronoun to refer 2 things. So, to avoid this ambiguity should we repeat the noun?
2. Do A and D have similar pronoun ambiguity error?
1. Yes, we would have to use the pronoun for only one of the two, and repeat the noun for the other.

2. Yes, A and D have the same issue: switching the referent of a pronoun.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 5:14 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by iongmat » Sat May 04, 2013 10:24 am
ceilidh.erickson wrote: 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.
There are a couple of pronoun issues here. One (as Gowri mentioned) is that "executives'" is possessive, and cannot be the antecedent of a pronoun.
Hello Ceilidh, in that case, can you please advice how the following is correct:

Among the objects found in the excavated temple were small terra-cotta effigies left by supplicants who were either asking the goddess Bona Dea's aid in healing physical and mental ills or thanking her for such help.
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
Thanked: 1443 times
Followed by:247 members

by ceilidh.erickson » Mon May 06, 2013 9:13 am
Great question! This is a somewhat sticky issue called "possessive poison." The idea is this: if the antecedent is in the possessive case, we should not use a non-possessive pronoun to replace it. We are, however, allowed to use a possessive pronoun to replace it.

From the MGMAT 4th edition guide:
"Jose's room is so messy that HIS mother calls HIM a pig" is incorrect
- "Jose's room is so messy that his mother calls Jose a pig" is correct

So here is the issue... this is a rule that the GMAT has noted in a handful of OG explanations, but it has never been the dispositive factor. There is also a great deal of confusion/inconsistency around this issue. It's unlikely that any grammarian would argue that "Ceilidh's father called her" should be changed to "Ceilidh's father called Ceilidh." That's just awkward.

So, I was perhaps overzealous in my explanation. I should have said:
"executives'" is possessive, and should not be the antecedent of a pronoun (although that will almost never be the deciding factor, and you shouldn't worry about that rule).
In the Bona Dea example, because "her" is a possessive pronoun, it is considered correct to replace the possessive antecedent "Bona Dea's."

For more on possessive poison, see: https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/pro ... t9533.html
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 5:14 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by iongmat » Mon May 06, 2013 9:57 am
ceilidh.erickson wrote: In the Bona Dea example, because "her" is a possessive pronoun, it is considered correct to replace the possessive antecedent "Bona Dea's."
Hello Ceilidh, I believe "her" in this sentence is used as an "object pronoun" and not as a "possessive pronoun".

Can you please advice.
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1