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

Redeem

Question about an OG question

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:08 am
Thanked: 1 times

Question about an OG question

by smodak » Tue Jul 26, 2011 10:13 am
As its sales of computer products have surpassed
those of measuring instruments, the company has
become increasingly willing to compete for the mass
market sales they would in the past have conceded
to rivals.
(A) they would in the past have conceded to rivals
(B) they would have conceded previously to their
rivals
(C) that in the past would have been conceded
previously to rivals
(D) it previously would have conceded to rivals in
the past
(E) it would in the past have conceded to rivals

OA: E

Now my question. A) and B) are obviously wrong as they use the plural pronoun 'they'.

C) Why is this choice incorrect. Just becuase it is in passive voice?
D) Don't we need a "which", to begin this clause? If not "why"? The OG says that the modifier "in the past" is misplaced - that is understood.
E) Same question - does it not need a "which" before it?
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:39 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 39 times
Followed by:22 members
GMAT Score:780

by SticklorForDetails » Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:06 am
smodak wrote:As its sales of computer products have surpassed
those of measuring instruments, the company has
become increasingly willing to compete for the mass
market sales they would in the past have conceded
to rivals.
(A) they would in the past have conceded to rivals
(B) they would have conceded previously to their
rivals
(C) that in the past would have been conceded
previously to rivals
(D) it previously would have conceded to rivals in
the past
(E) it would in the past have conceded to rivals

OA: E

Now my question. A) and B) are obviously wrong as they use the plural pronoun 'they'.

C) Why is this choice incorrect. Just becuase it is in passive voice?
D) Don't we need a "which", to begin this clause? If not "why"? The OG says that the modifier "in the past" is misplaced - that is understood.
E) Same question - does it not need a "which" before it?
First of all, (C) is in the passive while (E) is not. While you can't eliminate a choice just for being in the passive, in an error-free active version is correct, it's probably better.

However, (C) and (D) alike share an error that is often overlooked: redundancy. Both choices contain both "previously" and "in the past." This is terribly and awfully redundant and repetitive! In fact, when you spot this kind of blatant redundancy, it's more than just a style-preference issue: you can eliminate those choices completely right away.

As to your "which" question regarding choices (D) and (E), in fact, the relative pronoun is not necessary. In fact, we very often use adjective clauses without relative pronouns in English, with no comma separating them from the term they're modifying. For example:

That story you wrote was very good.

Here "you wrote" is an adjective clause describing "story." While it might be clearer (especially in the case of a long relative clause, such as in the above OG question) to include a "that" before "you wrote," it's not required. If set off my commas, though, you'll always see a relative pronoun, most likely "which:"

That story, you wrote, was very good (wrong)
That story, which you wrote, was very good (right)

Hope that helps!
Experienced tutors, customized study plans, personalized service.

www.GothamTutors.com/adam.html
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 69
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 11:08 am
Thanked: 1 times

by smodak » Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:09 pm
SticklorForDetails wrote:
smodak wrote:As its sales of computer products have surpassed
those of measuring instruments, the company has
become increasingly willing to compete for the mass
market sales they would in the past have conceded
to rivals.
(A) they would in the past have conceded to rivals
(B) they would have conceded previously to their
rivals
(C) that in the past would have been conceded
previously to rivals
(D) it previously would have conceded to rivals in
the past
(E) it would in the past have conceded to rivals

OA: E

Now my question. A) and B) are obviously wrong as they use the plural pronoun 'they'.

C) Why is this choice incorrect. Just becuase it is in passive voice?
D) Don't we need a "which", to begin this clause? If not "why"? The OG says that the modifier "in the past" is misplaced - that is understood.
E) Same question - does it not need a "which" before it?
First of all, (C) is in the passive while (E) is not. While you can't eliminate a choice just for being in the passive, in an error-free active version is correct, it's probably better.

However, (C) and (D) alike share an error that is often overlooked: redundancy. Both choices contain both "previously" and "in the past." This is terribly and awfully redundant and repetitive! In fact, when you spot this kind of blatant redundancy, it's more than just a style-preference issue: you can eliminate those choices completely right away.

As to your "which" question regarding choices (D) and (E), in fact, the relative pronoun is not necessary. In fact, we very often use adjective clauses without relative pronouns in English, with no comma separating them from the term they're modifying. For example:

That story you wrote was very good.

Here "you wrote" is an adjective clause describing "story." While it might be clearer (especially in the case of a long relative clause, such as in the above OG question) to include a "that" before "you wrote," it's not required. If set off my commas, though, you'll always see a relative pronoun, most likely "which:"

That story, you wrote, was very good (wrong)
That story, which you wrote, was very good (right)

Hope that helps!
Very helpful. Thanks much!!!
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:52 am
Thanked: 3 times

by M09 » Tue Jul 26, 2011 12:15 pm
smodak wrote:As its sales of computer products have surpassed
those of measuring instruments, the company has
become increasingly willing to compete for the mass
market sales they would in the past have conceded
to rivals.
(A) they would in the past have conceded to rivals
(B) they would have conceded previously to their
rivals
(C) that in the past would have been conceded
previously to rivals
(D) it previously would have conceded to rivals in
the past
(E) it would in the past have conceded to rivals

OA: E

Now my question. A) and B) are obviously wrong as they use the plural pronoun 'they'.

C) Why is this choice incorrect. Just becuase it is in passive voice?
D) Don't we need a "which", to begin this clause? If not "why"? The OG says that the modifier "in the past" is misplaced - that is understood.
E) Same question - does it not need a "which" before it?
Pretty straightforward this one
A & B you already know.
(C) that in the past would have been conceded previously to rivals - redundant
(D) it previously would have conceded to rivals in the past - same as above explanation.
E remains.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:08 pm

by nonameee » Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:51 am
Can someone pls explain why they at the beginning of "...they would in the past have conceded to rivals. " cannot refer to sales.

Thanks.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:08 pm

by nonameee » Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:06 am
I think I figured that out. The sentence would be different:

"...which would have been previously conceded to its rivals"

Now, what I am also not sure about is the word order:

"... it would in the past have conceded ..."

The sentence with the underlined portion just doesn't sound right. I think, it would be better like this:

"... it would have conceded in the past to its rivals."

Please clarify.
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Thanked: 387 times
Followed by:140 members

by Mike@Magoosh » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:37 pm
nonameee wrote:Now, what I am also not sure about is the word order:

"... it would in the past have conceded ..."

The sentence with the underlined portion just doesn't sound right. I think, it would be better like this:

"... it would have conceded in the past to its rivals."

Please clarify.
That's a great question! :)

As a general rule, it is considered better form not to split up a verb. Splitting infinitives is particularly egregious ("to boldly go . . ."), but aside from the word "not", it's usually better to leave all parts of the verb contiguous.

I don't know the source of this question, but it don't think it reflects well on that source that the correct answer, E, has the form:

. . . it would in the past have conceded to rivals.

I would avoid that in my own writing. Here, the words "in the past" split up the verb "would have conceded". I think either

. . . it would have conceded in the past to rivals.

. . . it would have conceded to rivals in the past.

is an improvement over the OA answer of this question; of these two, I prefer the latter, because it sounds better to have the indirect object ("to rivals") immediately following the verb. Even better, I would ditch the words "in the past" and use the word "previously" in its place:

. . . it previously would have conceded to rivals.

The verb is not split up, the indirect object immediate follows the verb, and the "in the past" idea is expressed succinctly in a single word. BAM! I like this final version much much better than the OA. Of course, remember, in GMAT SC, the goal is not to create the best possible version, but only to find the best of the five, and I grudgingly admit, (E) is the best of the five given this particular selection.

Does this make sense?

Mike :)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:08 pm

by nonameee » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:45 pm
Mike, thanks a lot for your help. This is from the OG.

Could you also please check my reasoning below?

Can someone pls explain why they at the beginning of "...they would in the past have conceded to rivals. " cannot refer to sales.
I think I figured that out. The sentence would be different:

"...which would have been previously conceded to its rivals"
Thank you.
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Thanked: 387 times
Followed by:140 members

by Mike@Magoosh » Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:57 pm
nonameee wrote:Mike, thanks a lot for your help. This is from the OG.

Could you also please check my reasoning below?
Can someone pls explain why they at the beginning of "...they would in the past have conceded to rivals. " cannot refer to sales.
I think I figured that out. The sentence would be different:

"...which would have been previously conceded to its rivals"
Thank you.
Grammatically, it's correct, but falls way short of GMAT standards. The only thing worse that using the passive voice in general is using the passive voice and omitting a subject explicitly mentioned already in the sentence. The words "the company" is the subject of the whole sentence, so there's something particularly awkward about phrasing the last part in a passive form which omits the action of the company.
The passive voice is minimally acceptable if the subject, the actor, is unknown, or if the entire emphasis is on the result of the action, not its cause. In this sentence, though, the actor is "the company" --- "the company" is the star of the sentence --- this is why it sounds so awkward to rephrase the last clause to avoid mentioning the company. It's like having an award ceremony for someone and not inviting them! It simply makes no sense to do that.

Does all this make sense? Please let me know if you have any more questions.

Mike :)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:08 pm

by nonameee » Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:01 pm
So are you saying that the pronoun they in "...they would in the past have conceded to rivals. " refers to the sales?
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Thanked: 387 times
Followed by:140 members

by Mike@Magoosh » Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:47 pm
nonameee wrote:So are you saying that the pronoun they in "...they would in the past have conceded to rivals. " refers to the sales?
No. When the clause is worded actively, not passively, then the actor, the subject of the clause's verb, is the same as the actor of the sentence, the subject of the main verb --- "the company." By contrast, "the sales" are the object of the action of the verb "have conceded".

That's precisely the problem with "they" --- it's a plural pronoun referring to a singular antecedent: "the company." That's precisely why (A) and (B) are incorrect.

Mike :)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:08 pm

by nonameee » Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:54 am
Mike, thank you.
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:58 am

by angela_lovegmat » Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:23 am
Mike@Magoosh wrote:
nonameee wrote:Now, what I am also not sure about is the word order:

"... it would in the past have conceded ..."

The sentence with the underlined portion just doesn't sound right. I think, it would be better like this:

"... it would have conceded in the past to its rivals."

Please clarify.
That's a great question! :)

As a general rule, it is considered better form not to split up a verb. Splitting infinitives is particularly egregious ("to boldly go . . ."), but aside from the word "not", it's usually better to leave all parts of the verb contiguous.

I don't know the source of this question, but it don't think it reflects well on that source that the correct answer, E, has the form:

. . . it would in the past have conceded to rivals.

I would avoid that in my own writing. Here, the words "in the past" split up the verb "would have conceded". I think either
. . . it would have conceded in the past to rivals.

. . . it would have conceded to rivals in the past.
Hey,Mike ,the latter would cause confusion ;"in the past" appears to modify "rivals".we can place it like the correct sentence in the OG.
is an improvement over the OA answer of this question; of these two, I prefer the latter, because it sounds better to have the indirect object ("to rivals") immediately following the verb. Even better, I would ditch the words "in the past" and use the word "previously" in its place:

. . . it previously would have conceded to rivals.

The verb is not split up, the indirect object immediate follows the verb, and the "in the past" idea is expressed succinctly in a single word. BAM! I like this final version much much better than the OA. Of course, remember, in GMAT SC, the goal is not to create the best possible version, but only to find the best of the five, and I grudgingly admit, (E) is the best of the five given this particular selection.

Does this make sense?

Mike :)
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:26 am
nonameee wrote:I think I figured that out. The sentence would be different:

"...which would have been previously conceded to its rivals"

Now, what I am also not sure about is the word order:

"... it would in the past have conceded ..."

The sentence with the underlined portion just doesn't sound right. I think, it would be better like this:

"... it would have conceded in the past to its rivals."

Please clarify.
GMAC frequently places an adverb between a helping verb and the verb being helped. The following examples are all from OAs in the OG12:

are IN EFFECT told
have NEVER been sighted
can HARDLY be said
can CONSTANTLY change
have RECENTLY discovered
were EVENTUALLY exhibited
were FIRST aired
can QUICKLY analyze
would LATER make
are CLOSELY related
has ALREADY stimulated
is WIDELY accepted

Thus, would IN THE PAST have conceded is in keeping with GMAC's rules.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:18 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA
Thanked: 387 times
Followed by:140 members

by Mike@Magoosh » Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:05 am
angela_lovegmat wrote:
. . . it would have conceded in the past to rivals.

. . . it would have conceded to rivals in the past.
Hey,Mike ,the latter would cause confusion ;"in the past" appears to modify "rivals".we can place it like the correct sentence in the OG.
Dear angela_lovegmat,
The prepositional phrase "in the past" is a adverb phrase modifying the verb. Unlike noun modifiers, which under most conditions must obey the "modifier touch rule", verb modifiers have a little more flexibility. I would argue that in "...it would have conceded to rivals in the past" the phrase "in the past" still clearly refers to the verb "conceded", because "in the past" is inherently an adverbial phrase, and cannot modify a noun --- if we want to modify the noun "rivals," the phrase "rivals in the past" sounds incredibly awkward, much less elegant than "past rivals."

Does that make sense? Let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike :)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
https://gmat.magoosh.com/
Top
Post new topic Locked