IMO B..

The original looks just dandy to me!

Did you have a specific question? (C) may also be tempting, but the GMAT favours the infinitive form (to rise) of the verb to noun phrases (their sharp rise), so I'd go with (A).

On the other hand, this doesn't sound like a true GMAT question (the sentence is awkward and on the GMAT this is a situation that often takes the subjunctive mood), so maybe (C) is the accredited choice.

Stuart -- reason i ruled out A because it has 'to sharply rise'.
do you think it's right?

IMO: C

aj5105 wrote:Stuart -- reason i ruled out A because it has 'to sharply rise'.
do you think it's right?

"Officially", at least according to 1950's grammar textbooks, it's wrong to split infinitives. However, in everyday english people constantly split them and it's idiomatically fine to do so.

"Sharply" is an adverb that modifies the verb "rise", which makes perfect sense.

aj5105 wrote:Stuart -- reason i ruled out A because it has 'to sharply rise'.
do you think it's right?

IMO: A
Even I had the same doubt but then chose A since no other option was better than A

Stuart Kovinsky wrote:

aj5105 wrote:Stuart -- reason i ruled out A because it has 'to sharply rise'.
do you think it's right?

"Officially", at least according to 1950's grammar textbooks, it's wrong to split infinitives. However, in everyday english people constantly split them and it's idiomatically fine to do so.

"Sharply" is an adverb that modifies the verb "rise", which makes perfect sense.

Thanks Stuart for the clarification.
So,can i conclude not to rule out options which have --'to adverb verb' ?

aj5105 wrote:

Stuart Kovinsky wrote:

aj5105 wrote:Stuart -- reason i ruled out A because it has 'to sharply rise'.
do you think it's right?

"Officially", at least according to 1950's grammar textbooks, it's wrong to split infinitives. However, in everyday english people constantly split them and it's idiomatically fine to do so.

"Sharply" is an adverb that modifies the verb "rise", which makes perfect sense.

Thanks Stuart for the clarification.
So,can i conclude not to rule out options which have --'to adverb verb' ?

MGMAT advises to "avoid sentences that insert a word (or words) between to and the verb." MGMAT goes on to say "you should know that it is almost always incorrect."

First off, let me say that I know of this grammatical rule. I've read it. I have it memorized. But now I want to know why.

Why is a split infinitive considered bad? 1) I don't understand the reasoning. 2) I can't imagine the rationale behind the reasoning.

Why would it be bad to say:

I need you to quickly get that heart defibrillator for me.

Why would the use of "quickly" be considered bad, except to claim that it's a split infinitive? It seems to me that "quickly" appropriately describes "get" as an adverb. If you flip it around, it would be:

I need you to get quickly that heart defibrillator for me.

This would be the putative correct usage, but stylistically, to me it sounds much better to use "quickly" before "get". It adds the appropriate emphasis.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, should the correct usage be?

I need you to get quickly for me that heart defibrillator.

I'd really like to hear from the experts as to why split infinitives are considered grammatically incorrect by official textbooks.

As I posted above, it's no longer idiomatically incorrect to split infinitives - people do it all the time.

Why was it originally considered incorrect? Who knows the mind of the 18th Century grammarian? Grammar rules just develop over time - English is one of the worst languages when it comes to rules and exceptions.

My guess would be that even though infinitives are comprised of 2 words, they're viewed as a single unit. So, just like we wouldn't split a word in half and insert another word in the middle, we don't put words in the middle of infinitives.