Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds,

IMO B

Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds, with the intention to turn in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets.
(A) with the intention --> with + Noun + to ... is unidiomatic. with + noun phrase or with + noun + that clause are better
(B) the intention of which is -->the best: which correctly modifies for mutual funds, the intention of which is grammatically correct
(C) intended --> intended is wrongly implied in passive for asset allocators
(D) and intending --> ungrammatical parallelism
(E) so intended as -->unidiomatic

I think the underlined section should modify "portfolios" - the author would use other ways if he wished to modify "mutual funds".
Now, "intended" in C, a past participle, nicely modifies "portfolios".

Hi daagh,
thanks for explanations.

I would like to point out few examples of correct usage of the idiom "intention". The source is Oxford Dictionary:

intention / noun
[C,U] ~ (of doing sth) | ~ (to do sth) | ~ (that...) what you intend or plan to do; your aim:
I have no intention of going to the wedding.
* He has announced his intention to retire.
* It was not my intention that she should suffer.
* He left England with the intention of travelling in Africa.
* I have every intention of paying her back what I owe her.
* The original intention was to devote three months to the project.
* She's full of good intentions but they rarely work out.
* I did it with the best (of) intentions (= meaning to help), but I only succeeded in annoying them.

So I would disagree that the idiom "intention to" is wrong. I think you wanted to say that the way it is used in A is wrong.
For example if it were "Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds, with the intention of turning in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets." it would be perfectly fine as for me.

Please let me know your thoughts.

thanks.

Pkit
You are perfectly right. In the given context - intention to turn in -does not fit in> Pairwise it may be acceptable as you have clearly made out

C is better than A because

"Intended" ... verb form... correctly modifies the verb "create".... whereas "with the intension" is wordy, and "intension" in the noun form. According to Manhattan advance sentence correction section convert nouns to verbs to make sentence precise and short

According to me, there are two problems with A.
The major one is that A is changing the implied meaning of the sentence. What is intended to give good results? Portfolios, or asset allocators? Answer is portfolios. A implies that the allocators themselves, not the portfolios, will turn in good results. That doesn't make sense.
Another problem is the idiom- intention of turning in is better than intention to turn in, idiom-wise.

This is the key to OA. Nice explanation on the below link:
https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/pos ... tml#p28192

Hi egmat GMATNinja AjiteshArun

Please suggest why option C is better than option A other than the idiom reason

Thanks

[quote="tenaman10"]Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds, with the intention to turn in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets.

(A) with the intention

(B) the intention of which is

(C) intended

(D) and intending"

(E) so intended as

choice A
the position of "with the intention to..." in the sentence makes it an adverb of the sentence. this adverb is special because it modifies the main clause and refers to the subject of the main clause. normal adverd modidie the preceding clause and dose not refer to the subject. so, the meaning of choice A is " allocators intend to turn in good result". this meaning makes no sense. "allocators turn into good result" is absurd.

some phrases which work as an adverb and refer to the subject include comma+doing or comma+do-ed.

I have passed gmat, opening the chance to get into havard.
I run out of this problem, afraid that it will take me a lot of time

the phrase both working as an adverb and refering to subject should be close to the subject because it refers to the subject. if the sentence is long, this phrase must be close to the subject, at the beginning of the sentence or after subject and a comma.

the phrase only working as an adverb can have position which is flexible, before, in the middle of at the end of the sentence.

we should know these special adverbs refering to subject. at first, you feel hard. but it is simple. the only thing to remember is their position should be close to the subject if the sentence is long.

adverbs not refering to the subject of the sentence is normal adverb

I eat a lot in the morning. in the morning, I eat a lot. "in the morning" is normal adverb and its position is flexible.

choice B
"the intention of which" means "the intention of the fund". "intention of the fund" is absurd.
only human or animal can intend.
the correct meaning is that someone intend that this fund will turn in good result. english has an idiom to encode this meaning. in the dictionary, we see, "intended to do something".

I am intended to lead this country
this means my people intend that I will lead this country.

takeaway. know adverbs refering to the subject.

In A Preposition" with the intention" presents intention of asset allocators whereas " intended" rightly modifies portfolios in C .

"With the intention to" vs "intended to" --> What's the best way to decide amongst these?

sdfruis, meaning. The way that these phrases have been used, they convey different meaning and one of them is better than the other.

HiAjiteshArun

I have 2 queries :
On A:
Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds, with the intention to turn in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets.

(A) with the intention
(C) intended


As intention should refer to Subject ( some people) i.e. Asset allocators . A refers clearly AA did something with intention.with the intention doesn't refer to mutual funds or portfolios as both are non living things.
But in C it clearly wrongly refers to mutual funds or portfolios ( Verb +ED modifier)


Example: I used this sentence , long one, with the intention to give an example
I used this sentence, intended to give an example.
intended refers to sentence. But sentence can not have an intention. I have intention . So verb ed should not make sense.
Please correct

ii. in your explanation you considered intended refers to portfolio but i. Could not intended wrongly refer to mutual funds? Noun1, modifier1 noun2, verb ed modifer2. Verb+ ed modifier can refer to noun2 or noun1 .

Please suggest. AjiteshArun

Hi mSKR,

That's one of the points I tried to make in my previous post. We don't want to make the intended idea go back to anything other than portfolios.

A portfolio is a set of stocks (or other instruments). Not all portfolios deliver good returns across market/business cycles. This is one of the reasons why something like "Asset allocators (with the intention to do something) create portfolios" is unlikely to be correct. They don't create a portfolio. They create a particular type of portfolio.

Hi GMATNinja DmitryFarber MartyTargetTestPrep

Could you please guide why option-A is incorrect? I couldn't find either a definite or logical issue in this option
comma + [WITH] structure can perfectly modify the verb - create

Meaning (option-A): Asset allocators create something with the intention to turn in good results.

How come Option-C is better, in which a past participle can modify either "portfolios" or "asset allocators"

Regards
Rohit

Normally in English, when we mention a specific example of a general noun, we use the word "of" to connect the general noun to the specific example.

For instance, in the following sentence "of" connects the general "case" to the specific instance of a case.

It seems likely that the the entire comical event can be considered a case of mistaken identity.

In this SC question, the (A) version uses "to" in "with the intention to turn in good results."

It should use "of" to connect "intention" to the specific intention mentioned, as in "with the intention of turning in good results."

Hello Expert

I have following doubts:

1. '' , often ...'' is a comma+ ed verbal. As per e-gmat it is same as , +ing verbal and thus should modify the verb which is not the case here. can , ed verbal modifies verb or it is always noun ?


2. does 'ing' or ed verbal indicates the tense? the present and past tone of the sentence can be deduced from these verbals ?

3. can a modifier modify different nouns e.g
'' More than ever before, policies, curricula, and salaries no longer following... ''

'following modifying the preceding 'salaries' or all of it before. Do we call it ambiguous or logical ?


4. Modifier 1, modifier 2, modified noun.

do we need a connector b/w mod 1 and mod 2. I guess when modifier 1 is an appositive phrase/ absolute phrase then we don't need a connector. Please confirm



Thanking you in anticipation