Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings IS indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.
Shouldnt the verb be "are" ? The subject is "the return on X and profitability for Y"
Correct?
question S/V agreement -- need expert help
This topic has expert replies
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
- Thanked: 3 times
- Followed by:1 members
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1574
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
- Thanked: 88 times
- Followed by:13 members
I also feel that the verb should have been arevoodoo_child wrote:Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings IS indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.
Shouldnt the verb be "are" ? The subject is "the return on X and profitability for Y"
Correct?
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
- Thanked: 114 times
- Followed by:12 members
Normally subject of a clause will not be part of a prepositional phrase - here 'on assets and profitability per employee' is a prepositional phrase.voodoo_child wrote:Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings IS indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.
Shouldnt the verb be "are" ? The subject is "the return on X and profitability for Y"
Correct?
Moreover, the clause wants to emphasize on 'THE RETURN' and therefore its the subject.
Since THE RETURN is signular IS is ok.
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1574
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
- Thanked: 88 times
- Followed by:13 members
Hi Patanjali,patanjali.purpose wrote:Normally subject of a clause will not be part of a prepositional phrase - here 'on assets and profitability per employee' is a prepositional phrase.voodoo_child wrote:Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings IS indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.
Shouldnt the verb be "are" ? The subject is "the return on X and profitability for Y"
Correct?
Moreover, the clause wants to emphasize on 'THE RETURN' and therefore its the subject.
Since THE RETURN is signular IS is ok.
Can you please explain the same in little bit more detail?
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 784
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:51 am
- Thanked: 114 times
- Followed by:12 members
Example 1 (OG12):aspirant2011 wrote:Hi Patanjali,patanjali.purpose wrote:Normally subject of a clause will not be part of a prepositional phrase - here 'on assets and profitability per employee' is a prepositional phrase.voodoo_child wrote:Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings IS indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.
Shouldnt the verb be "are" ? The subject is "the return on X and profitability for Y"
Correct?
Moreover, the clause wants to emphasize on 'THE RETURN' and therefore its the subject.
Since THE RETURN is signular IS is ok.
Can you please explain the same in little bit more detail?
Fossils of the arm of a sloth, found in Puerto Rico in 1991, have been dated at 34 million years old, making the sloth the earliest known mammal on... (of the arm of a sloth =/= subject as its a prep phrase; subject is Fossils and therefore the verb is 'have been'
Example 2 (source: https://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subject.htm)
The subject of a verb will never be part of a prepositional phrase. A prepositional phrase begins with a preposition [in, on, at, between, among, etc.] and ends with a noun, pronoun, or gerund. Look at these examples of prepositional phrases:
in the dirty bathtub
on the bumpy road
at home
between us
among the empty pizza boxes
without crying
Hope it helps.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:44 am
- Thanked: 3 times
- Followed by:1 members
Ok. If I go by that logic, and also if I break the parallelism,patanjali.purpose wrote:Normally subject of a clause will not be part of a prepositional phrase - here 'on assets and profitability per employee' is a prepositional phrase.voodoo_child wrote:Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings IS indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.
Shouldnt the verb be "are" ? The subject is "the return on X and profitability for Y"
Correct?
Moreover, the clause wants to emphasize on 'THE RETURN' and therefore its the subject.
Since THE RETURN is signular IS is ok.
the return on assets and on profitability X => doesnt sound logical to me.
BTW, the idea of "return on X and profitability per employee" can be considered as a singular concept. May be that could be the reason. I am not sure and that's why I asked for an expert to comment.
Voodoo
-
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 10:30 am
- Thanked: 1 times
- Followed by:2 members
Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings IS indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.
I am confused with "those" and also is there a comparison issue? (Return compared to companies that were not privatized).
[spoiler][/spoiler]
I am confused with "those" and also is there a comparison issue? (Return compared to companies that were not privatized).
[spoiler][/spoiler]
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1574
- Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
- Thanked: 88 times
- Followed by:13 members
Thanks a lot Patanjali, it was indeed a good link and nice explanationpatanjali.purpose wrote:Example 1 (OG12):aspirant2011 wrote:Hi Patanjali,patanjali.purpose wrote:Normally subject of a clause will not be part of a prepositional phrase - here 'on assets and profitability per employee' is a prepositional phrase.voodoo_child wrote:Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings IS indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.
Shouldnt the verb be "are" ? The subject is "the return on X and profitability for Y"
Correct?
Moreover, the clause wants to emphasize on 'THE RETURN' and therefore its the subject.
Since THE RETURN is signular IS is ok.
Can you please explain the same in little bit more detail?
Fossils of the arm of a sloth, found in Puerto Rico in 1991, have been dated at 34 million years old, making the sloth the earliest known mammal on... (of the arm of a sloth =/= subject as its a prep phrase; subject is Fossils and therefore the verb is 'have been'
Example 2 (source: https://www.chompchomp.com/terms/subject.htm)
The subject of a verb will never be part of a prepositional phrase. A prepositional phrase begins with a preposition [in, on, at, between, among, etc.] and ends with a noun, pronoun, or gerund. Look at these examples of prepositional phrases:
in the dirty bathtub
on the bumpy road
at home
between us
among the empty pizza boxes
without crying
Hope it helps.
- DanaJ
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2567
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
- Thanked: 712 times
- Followed by:550 members
- GMAT Score:770
Just got a PM.
To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "return on profitability per employee." So for me the initial sentence must be in the plural, i.e. the correct version should be "return [...] and profitability [...] are"
You can also spot another error here, since they "conclude that the return and profitability are indistinguishable from those that were not privatized." This should be "the return and profitability are indistinguishable from those of companies that were not privatized at all." In the original sentence, we're matching "return and profitability" with "companies," which doesn't work.
To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "return on profitability per employee." So for me the initial sentence must be in the plural, i.e. the correct version should be "return [...] and profitability [...] are"
You can also spot another error here, since they "conclude that the return and profitability are indistinguishable from those that were not privatized." This should be "the return and profitability are indistinguishable from those of companies that were not privatized at all." In the original sentence, we're matching "return and profitability" with "companies," which doesn't work.
The original sentence is correct.DanaJ wrote:Just got a PM.
To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "return on profitability per employee." So for me the initial sentence must be in the plural, i.e. the correct version should be "return [...] and profitability [...] are"
You can also spot another error here, since they "conclude that the return and profitability are indistinguishable from those that were not privatized." This should be "the return and profitability are indistinguishable from those of companies that were not privatized at all." In the original sentence, we're matching "return and profitability" with "companies," which doesn't work.
Skeleton of the sentence -
1.1) Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business,
1.2) Yan Guo of Peking University and
1.3) Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong
conclude that
2.1) the return on assets and profitability per employee for companies [that have undergone partial share offerings]
2.2.1-COMPARISON) IS indistinguishable from
2.2) those that were not privatised at all.
"is indistinguishable from" is correct in this case because of THE in 2.1)
If there is no "THE" in (2.1), then "are indistinguishable from" is correct.
Btw - the source of this sentence - https://www.economist.com/node/21528262
- DanaJ
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2567
- Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
- Thanked: 712 times
- Followed by:550 members
- GMAT Score:770
I'm not convinced, to be honest. What is the subject here? Is it "the return" or is it "the return and profitability"? Again, I don't believe there is such a thing as a "return on profitability." Or maybe I'm missing something?
Subject - the return on assets and profitability per employee for companiesDanaJ wrote:I'm not convinced, to be honest. What is the subject here? Is it "the return" or is it "the return and profitability"?
IS - linking verb
Frankly speaking, I am not a grammar fan. So do not like the term "linking verb", but it conveys the correct meaning in this context.
Yes - That is correct. There is no such thing as a "return on profitability.". One of the correct usages will be "return to profitability" because "profitability" is the "ability to earn a profit". So, in this case we may use "return on sales per employee" or anything that makes sense contextually.DanaJ wrote:Again, I don't believe there is such a thing as a "return on profitability."
One of the correct versions of the sentence avoiding the wrong idiom will be -
Jie Gan of Cheung Kong Graduate School of Business, Yan Guo of Peking University and Chenggang Xu of the University of Hong Kong conclude that the return on assets and sales per employee for companies that have undergone partial share offerings is indistinguishable from those that were not privatised at all.
Or maybe I'm missing something?
@voodoo_child - Why do you not quote the source of the questions or at least mention that you do not know the source? This is a sharing forum. So please put the source if you know or mention the source as unknown. That way no one will be left guessing. The article was hardly 2 or 3 days old.