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.
Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worried well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
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 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.
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.
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.
Heavy commitment
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 10:31 am
- Location: Portugal
- Thanked: 7 times
B for me.
Between B and C, C does not clearly reffer to what has worked well in the past.
A is almost unreadable.
D and E contain 'being' that has been banned from the GMAT world and none of them clearly states the idea.
Between B and C, C does not clearly reffer to what has worked well in the past.
A is almost unreadable.
D and E contain 'being' that has been banned from the GMAT world and none of them clearly states the idea.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 5:44 am
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:1 members
Please dont be under the impression that "being" is always incorrect in GMAT. Although it is advisable to avoid "being" in GMAT, there r cases where it might be correct.
A - "makes it likely to miss" - it incorrectly refers to "course of action".
B - if u closely read this option, it changes the intended meaning of the sentence.
C - "especially if it has worked well in the past" - misplaced modifier.It should modify "course of action".
D - antecedant to "they" is not clear (executives or signs of trouble).
hence IMO E.
Thanks!
A - "makes it likely to miss" - it incorrectly refers to "course of action".
B - if u closely read this option, it changes the intended meaning of the sentence.
C - "especially if it has worked well in the past" - misplaced modifier.It should modify "course of action".
D - antecedant to "they" is not clear (executives or signs of trouble).
hence IMO E.
Thanks!
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:44 am
- Thanked: 26 times
Even though we know that Being can be remotely correct on the GMAT, I will bite the bullet and ignore D & E here
Being heavily committed to a course of action
&
Heavily committed to a course of action
are one and the same and hence being is NOT needed. I remember this from MGMAT book. Some one please correct me if I am wrong.
The sentence as it is has ambiguous reference to it (commitment or course of action)
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.
The bold part is awkward to me
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
Looks good to me they refers to signs of incipient trouble (NOT just trouble) and it refers to course of action. Sentence is in active voice.
What is the OA?
Being heavily committed to a course of action
&
Heavily committed to a course of action
are one and the same and hence being is NOT needed. I remember this from MGMAT book. Some one please correct me if I am wrong.
The sentence as it is has ambiguous reference to it (commitment or course of action)
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.
The bold part is awkward to me
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
Looks good to me they refers to signs of incipient trouble (NOT just trouble) and it refers to course of action. Sentence is in active voice.
What is the OA?
Please do not post answer along with the Question you post/ask
Let people discuss the Questions with out seeing answers.
Let people discuss the Questions with out seeing answers.
IMO E
Good point @chidcguy.
But in the context of this question,option E, the continuing part says "is likely to make". Hence I feel that the sentence should start with describing some condition, which is likely to lead to something. Without the use of 'being', we could have alternatively started the sentence as 'Heavy commitment'....'is likely to make'.....being also does the same. But without being, the starting part 'Heavily committed to.. ' dosent seem to fit in with the continuing part .
Thats only my viewpoint, can always be wrong
Good point @chidcguy.
But in the context of this question,option E, the continuing part says "is likely to make". Hence I feel that the sentence should start with describing some condition, which is likely to lead to something. Without the use of 'being', we could have alternatively started the sentence as 'Heavy commitment'....'is likely to make'.....being also does the same. But without being, the starting part 'Heavily committed to.. ' dosent seem to fit in with the continuing part .
Thats only my viewpoint, can always be wrong
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:44 am
- Thanked: 26 times
@reachac
I agree with what you are saying. It is possible that the OA is indeed E.
Why do you think C is wrong? Do you think that the antecedent of it is ambiguous ?
I was not sure for a moment but felt that it is not referring to trouble because I felt that there is no singular trouble in the sentence. We have a plural signs of incipient trouble.
Ian/Stuart??
I agree with what you are saying. It is possible that the OA is indeed E.
Why do you think C is wrong? Do you think that the antecedent of it is ambiguous ?
I was not sure for a moment but felt that it is not referring to trouble because I felt that there is no singular trouble in the sentence. We have a plural signs of incipient trouble.
Ian/Stuart??
Please do not post answer along with the Question you post/ask
Let people discuss the Questions with out seeing answers.
Let people discuss the Questions with out seeing answers.
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:14 pm
This is just my opinion;
Lets forget the English for a moment, and look at the original question structurally and focus in its meaning;
CAUSE, makes it likely EFFECT 1 or EFFECT 2.
CAUSE: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action
EFFECT 1: to miss signs of incipient trouble
EFFECT 2: misinterpret them when they do appear
Here, nowhere is it mentioned that it makes the 'Executive' miss signs or misinterpret them. So, if E says that "is likely to make an executive miss signs..." it is certainly changing the meaning of the original sentence.
It could be possible that it makes the speculators, shareholders or to the employees of the company miss the signs etc. etc.
So a good question to ask would be "WHO IS LIKELY TO MISS SIGNS.."
B is a better answer as it says that the Executive is a part of the CAUSE and not necessarily a part of the EFFECT.
Ok if you have a some doubt add the work 'more' before likely in choice B and see if it makes sence now.
Open for comments !
Lets forget the English for a moment, and look at the original question structurally and focus in its meaning;
CAUSE, makes it likely EFFECT 1 or EFFECT 2.
CAUSE: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action
EFFECT 1: to miss signs of incipient trouble
EFFECT 2: misinterpret them when they do appear
Here, nowhere is it mentioned that it makes the 'Executive' miss signs or misinterpret them. So, if E says that "is likely to make an executive miss signs..." it is certainly changing the meaning of the original sentence.
It could be possible that it makes the speculators, shareholders or to the employees of the company miss the signs etc. etc.
So a good question to ask would be "WHO IS LIKELY TO MISS SIGNS.."
B is a better answer as it says that the Executive is a part of the CAUSE and not necessarily a part of the EFFECT.
Ok if you have a some doubt add the work 'more' before likely in choice B and see if it makes sence now.
Open for comments !
The correct idiom should be in the form "be likely to" (read in OG, i don remember the question number)
only C and E uses this...
i chose C :roll:
can someone explain C and E please...
only C and E uses this...
i chose C :roll:
can someone explain C and E please...
--------------------------
i am back!
i am back!
GMAT/MBA Expert
- e-GMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 645
- Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: US
- Thanked: 527 times
- Followed by:227 members
This is a very good advanced level question. It tests your understanding of modifiers and pronouns. It also tests your understanding of the intended meaning of the sentence.
Since most of you were able to eliminate choices A and D, I will concentrate on Choices B, C, and E.
Lets begin the solution:
Step 1 - Read the original sentence and understand the meaning.
Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worried well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
(Note that even though you were all able to eliminate choice A, we still need to review this choice to understand the meaning that the correct choice is intended to communicate).
1. Sentence talks about an executive who is heavily committed to a course of action
2. This course of action has worked well in the past
3. Because of this heavy commitment, the executive is likely to miss the signs of trouble when they appear.
Step 2 - We will understand the errors in this sentence:
Pronoun Error - ..makes it likely to...- "IT" has no clear antecedent. The sentence must specify clearly that executive is likely to miss the signs...
Thus, choice A is eliminated
Step 3 - Process of Elimination or Choice Analysis
Choice 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.
This choice changes the intended meaning of the sentence. Here is what this sentence communicates:
1. Executive is heavily committed to a course of action - Same as Intended Meaning
2. Executive makes missing signs of trouble likely - Different from Intended Meaning
Thus, choice B states that executives makes the missing of signs likely, whereas, the intended meaning is that the heavy commitment to the course of action makes missing signs likely.
Choice 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.
This choice does not distort the original meaning of the sentence. However, from this sentence it is not clear as to what has worked well in the past. Thus, this sentence has pronoun reference error for "it"
Choice 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 choice maintains the intended meaning:
1. Action of being heavily committed to a course of action causes the effect.
2. The effect is that the executive misses signs of trouble
Note here that the phrase "being heavily committed to a course of action" is the subject for the verb "is".
Let me know if this makes sense to you.
Also, I would like to say that please do not reject a choice just because it has the word "being". You must do a careful analysis of each choice and pick the choice that communicates the intended meaning without any grammatical errors.
For e-GMAT Users, all Sentence Correction questions are solved using a step by step process. These solutions can be found in the 9 Application Files and UGE. (Total of 150+ questions)
Since most of you were able to eliminate choices A and D, I will concentrate on Choices B, C, and E.
Lets begin the solution:
Step 1 - Read the original sentence and understand the meaning.
Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worried well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
(Note that even though you were all able to eliminate choice A, we still need to review this choice to understand the meaning that the correct choice is intended to communicate).
1. Sentence talks about an executive who is heavily committed to a course of action
2. This course of action has worked well in the past
3. Because of this heavy commitment, the executive is likely to miss the signs of trouble when they appear.
Step 2 - We will understand the errors in this sentence:
Pronoun Error - ..makes it likely to...- "IT" has no clear antecedent. The sentence must specify clearly that executive is likely to miss the signs...
Thus, choice A is eliminated
Step 3 - Process of Elimination or Choice Analysis
Choice 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.
This choice changes the intended meaning of the sentence. Here is what this sentence communicates:
1. Executive is heavily committed to a course of action - Same as Intended Meaning
2. Executive makes missing signs of trouble likely - Different from Intended Meaning
Thus, choice B states that executives makes the missing of signs likely, whereas, the intended meaning is that the heavy commitment to the course of action makes missing signs likely.
Choice 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.
This choice does not distort the original meaning of the sentence. However, from this sentence it is not clear as to what has worked well in the past. Thus, this sentence has pronoun reference error for "it"
Choice 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 choice maintains the intended meaning:
1. Action of being heavily committed to a course of action causes the effect.
2. The effect is that the executive misses signs of trouble
Note here that the phrase "being heavily committed to a course of action" is the subject for the verb "is".
Let me know if this makes sense to you.
Also, I would like to say that please do not reject a choice just because it has the word "being". You must do a careful analysis of each choice and pick the choice that communicates the intended meaning without any grammatical errors.
For e-GMAT Users, all Sentence Correction questions are solved using a step by step process. These solutions can be found in the 9 Application Files and UGE. (Total of 150+ questions)
Register for free live sessions
Sentence Correction: Get 4 free video lessons, 50 practice questions
Critical Reasoning workshop: Get 4 free video lessons, 40 practice questions
Reading Comprehension: Get 2 free video lessons and 2 free eBooks
Free Strategy Session: Key strategy to score 760
Success Stories
V27 to V42 | V28 to V48 | V25 to V38 | More Success Stories
Sentence Correction: Get 4 free video lessons, 50 practice questions
Critical Reasoning workshop: Get 4 free video lessons, 40 practice questions
Reading Comprehension: Get 2 free video lessons and 2 free eBooks
Free Strategy Session: Key strategy to score 760
Success Stories
V27 to V42 | V28 to V48 | V25 to V38 | More Success Stories
- gmat_perfect
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:38 pm
- Thanked: 127 times
- Followed by:14 members
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.
Skeleton of the sentence:
Heavy commitment makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them
when they do appear.
--> meaning is "heavy commitment makes it likely to miss". Does heavy commitment do it? Makes no sense?
So, the original sentence is wrong.
Take the option B:
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.
---> At the first reading it seems that course of action is one that worked well. Does it make sense?
=> Eliminate B.
Take the option C:
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.
The problems in C are:
1. "An executive who is heavily committed" can be replaced by "Heavily committed executive".
2. It has two potential references: a course of action and 'incipient trouble'.
Eliminate C.
Take the option D:
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.
=> "Executives' being heavily committed" can be replaced by "heavy commitment of executives".
=> it does not have clear reference. What has worked well?
Eliminate D.
The remaining option, E is the best answer.
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.
Skeleton of the sentence:
Heavy commitment makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them
when they do appear.
--> meaning is "heavy commitment makes it likely to miss". Does heavy commitment do it? Makes no sense?
So, the original sentence is wrong.
Take the option B:
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.
---> At the first reading it seems that course of action is one that worked well. Does it make sense?
=> Eliminate B.
Take the option C:
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.
The problems in C are:
1. "An executive who is heavily committed" can be replaced by "Heavily committed executive".
2. It has two potential references: a course of action and 'incipient trouble'.
Eliminate C.
Take the option D:
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.
=> "Executives' being heavily committed" can be replaced by "heavy commitment of executives".
=> it does not have clear reference. What has worked well?
Eliminate D.
The remaining option, E is the best answer.
- gmat_perfect
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:38 pm
- Thanked: 127 times
- Followed by:14 members
I have seen that BEING is correct in the following case:
Being + Adverb + Past participle form of verb.
Example:
Being genetically engineered,,,,,,,,
Being heavily committed....................
--> I have found these two in GMATPREP sentence.
We can memorize this at least.
Being + Adverb + Past participle form of verb.
Example:
Being genetically engineered,,,,,,,,
Being heavily committed....................
--> I have found these two in GMATPREP sentence.
We can memorize this at least.