Yeah.. even i was about to post this question..

Please explain when is being wrong and when is it correct.

A. Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it ( commitment or course of action) has worked well in the past, makes it(commitment or course of action) 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. Changes meaning

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 (trouble or course of action) 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. Correct, Being is the linking verb here.
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. Passive

D is the best answer but i have one doubt about it.

Usage of if is incorrect. We are refferring to the time frame by usoing past, hence "when" should be used.

Rest of the sentence looks ok.

Any thoughts??

For (D), nouns in the possessive case (with 's or s') are often poor antecedents. Possessive Poison states that "them" cannot refer to " Executives' ". Possessive nouns can ONLY serve as antecedents to possessive pronouns, not subject or object pronouns. (MGMAT SC 3rd ed. p.82).

Thus (E) is the better answer choice.

Only (C) isn't ambiguous with pronouns. the "it" in the end may seems so, but if you read the sentence you'll see that it can refers only to one thing: course of action.

beater wrote: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.

If you spot ambiguous pronouns, please explain them.

Only (C) isn't ambiguous with pronouns. the "it" in the end may seems so, but if you read the sentence you'll see that it can refers only to one thing: course of action.

For (D), nouns in the possessive case (with 's or s') are often poor antecedents. Possessive Poison states that "them" cannot refer to " Executives' ". Possessive nouns can ONLY serve as antecedents to possessive pronouns, not subject or object pronouns. (MGMAT SC 3rd ed. p.82).

Thats a good catch. Yes D cannot be the answer.

But there is no other answer that seems correct

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.

Referrent error.

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.

It means that executive is making missing signs....changes the meaning

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. (refferent problem)

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. Has a misplaced modifier. (who is being heavily committed)

Dont know what should be the right answer.

Does anyone know the source of this question?

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.

If you spot ambiguous pronouns, please explain them.[/quote]

Only (C) isn't ambiguous with pronouns. the "it" in the end may seems so, but if you read the sentence you'll see that it can refers only to one thing: course of action.[/quote]

I was torn between [C] & [E]; however, I would evaluate the risks and go with [C], simply because 90% of the time it has been advised to avoid using BEING and in this case, we certainly can avoid the usage. In addition, "who is heavily committed to the course of action? IS or executives

This link might be helpful to clear up the confusion with BEING:

https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/vie ... e6a#p10996

I struggle to detect ambiguous pronouns and haven't come across a clear definition of what makes a pronoun ambiguous. The way I understand, IT in the original sentence is ambigious because it could be referring to course of action or heavy commitment. Would you agree?

[/u]

beater wrote: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.

If you spot ambiguous pronouns, please explain them.

OA - E

A,C,D clearly out
because of pronoun references

A - "it" can refer to commitment or course of action
B - An executive.. makes missing sings.. changes the meaning.. illogical.
C -->"it" can refer to "course of action " or phrase "An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action"
D --> same C . asloe them --> can't refer to Executives's (possesive poison)



E is the best option.

"Being" is always not wrong in GMAT.

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.

If you spot ambiguous pronouns, please explain them.

OA - E

A is out because "makes it likely to miss..." is awkward and unclear -- who is going to miss the signs of trouble, etc.?

B is out for at least 2 reasons, one being that it doesn't make sense to say "an executive... makes missing signs of trouble or misintrepreting them likely."

C is out because it isn't at all clear what the "it" refers to. It's too difficult to go digging back through the sentence to find this not-very-prominent noun "course of action" by the time you get to the "it".

D is out for a number of reasons, but one that's easy to see is that "makes them likely to miss" is simply not English.

E is OK -- not poetry, but it's acceptable. The thing that many people here seem confused about is why it's OK to have "being" here. This is not an example of a misplaced modifier. "Being heavily committed to a course of action" isn't any kind of a modifier here -- it's the subject of the sentence. The word "being" is a gerund (a verbal noun), not a participle modifying another noun. In other words, the structure of the sentence is like this:

Subject: [Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past] Predicate: [is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.]

Wonderfull .. You have always explianed the way i understand..
Thank you soo much !! .. thank you..