In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in t

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the meaning of this sentence is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, in the event that the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and the corporation benefited as a result.

Concepts tested here: Subject-Verb Agreement + Meaning + Tenses + Pronouns + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• The simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature.
• The simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past.
• The simple present continuous tense is used to refer to actions that are currently ongoing and continuous in nature.
• The simple past continuous tense is used to refer to actions that were ongoing over a period of time in the past.

A: Correct. This answer choice correctly refers to the singular pronoun phrase "one of its employees" with the singular verb "commits". Moreover, Option A avoids the pronoun errors seen in Options C and D, as it clearly and logically refers to the singular pronoun "a corporation" with the singular pronoun "it". Further, Option A uses the phrases "one of its employees" and "if the employee acted", conveying the intended meaning - that any individual corporation commits a crime whenever an employee belonging to that corporation commits a crime, in the event that the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and the corporation benefited as a result. Additionally, Option A correctly uses the simple present tense verb "commits" to refer to information that is permanent in nature and uses the simple past tense verb "acted" to refer to an action that concluded in the past. Besides, Option A is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

B: This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple present continuous tense verb "is committing" and the simple past tense verb "committed" to refer to information that is permanent in nature; please remember, information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense, the simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past, and the simple present continuous tense is used to refer to actions that are currently ongoing and continuous in nature. Moreover, Option B incorrectly uses the simple past continuous tense verb "were acting" to refer to an action that concluded in the past; please remember, actions that concluded in the past are conveyed through the simple past tense, and the simple past continuous tense is used to refer to actions that were ongoing over a period of time in the past.

C: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the plural noun "corporations" with the singular pronoun "its". Further, Option C incorrectly uses the simple present tense verb "acts" to refer to an action that concluded in the past; remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past, and the simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature. Additionally, Option C uses the needlessly wordy construction "on the condition that", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

D: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun phrase "an employee" with the plural verb "commit". Further, Option D alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "an employee of those corporations"; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that corporations collectively commit crimes whenever an employee belonging to all of the corporations commits a crime; the intended meaning is that any individual corporation commits a crime whenever an employee belonging to that corporation commits a crime. Additionally, Option D suffers from a pronoun error, as the pronoun "it" lacks a clear and logical referent.

E: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrases "whose employees commit a crime" and "whenever the employee acted"; the construction of these phrases leads to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, in the event that the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and the corporation benefited as a result.

Hence, A is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



To understand the concept of "Simple Continuous Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

I think it should be A

and if the corporation benefited as a result at the end of the sentence says that we need to corporation but not corporations

B - not parallel
C, D - pronoun problems
E - muddled and akward.

A stands.

2 things to keep in mind for this one. First, the count. Second, parallelism.

A. a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted... benefited - count of employee matches. Parallelism matches
B. a corporation is committing a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if those employees were acting- Count of employee doesn't match.
C. corporations commit a crime whenever one of its employees does, on the condition that the employee acts...benefited- No parallelism.
D. corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting..benefited- No parallelism.
E. the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the employee acted - Count doesnt match.

In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United Stated today, a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.

A. a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted
Correct. The subject verb agreement is in place
B. a corporation is committing a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if those employees were acting
Tenses do not match with each other. Continuous tense is used for an ongoing action. Here employee has already committed a crime, hence corporation has also already committed a crime and is not in the process of doing so.
C. corporations commit a crime whenever one of its employees does, on the condition that the employee acts
Subject Verb agreement. Corporations need a "those" not "its"
D. corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting
Subject Verb agreement. Employee needs "commits" not "commit"
E. the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the employee acted
Whenever changes the meaning of the sentence

Hi mikemcgarry,
I have no objection with the correct answer.
However,can you please elaborate more on the shift of tense in option (A).
IMHO,the second part after "but" explains the condition of criminal law.If this condition is met,something happens.
Why the tense are not all in present tense in this part?

Thanks

Dear sleepynut

I'm happy to respond.

This is a somewhat unusual construction. It sounds perfectly natural to a native speaker, but I can see that it would be puzzling to a non-native speaker.

The basic idea is that there's a time lag between the actions and the evaluation of the actions. You see, if someone steal a car or breaks into a house, these actions are unambiguously crimes, and so the crime is the same as the action and they both happen at the same time. With a complex corporate situation, it's much more ambiguous. Several actors are doing several different things, some responding to direct orders, some responding to company protocols, some acting on their own initiative. A set of consequences arises from all these actions that fall outside what ordinarily would result from legal behavior. Somebody has to investigate, and it may be weeks or months later before this investigator reaches the conclusion that what happened much earlier constituted a crime. The verbs "commits" are in the present, because the judgment that it is a crime is in the present: really, it's a general rule, which is always spoken in the present. The verbs after the comma, about the individual actions themselves, are in the past because invariably they happened long before any judgment is rendered.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United Stated today, a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.

(A) a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted - Correct

(B) a corporation is committing a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if those employees were acting - Tense issue -- is committing and committed should be in same tense

(C) corporations commit a crime whenever one of its employees does, on the condition that the employee acts - tense issue - acts and benefited should be in same tense since both of those actions are simultaneous; corporations and its employees -- Pronoun issue

D) corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting - tense issue same as C

(E) the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the employee acted - the modifier "whose employees commit a crime" is set off by only one comma. a modifier must be set off by either 2 commas or 0 commas (unless it begins or ends the entire sentence).
unacceptable shift of meaning: the original context is that the corporation commits a crime if ONE of the employees commits a crime, but this sentence describes a crime committed by multiple employees
"whenever" is not parallel to "...and if"

In conditional verb, we have the below three forms-
1. IF clause (Simple present), Then (Simple present or Simple future)
2. IF clause (Simple past), Then (Simple past or Would verb)
3. IF clause (Past perfect), Then (Would have verb)

In OA-A, since the IF clause is in simple past - if the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.
shouldn't the THEN clause - a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime- be in simple past?

1.In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United States today, a corporation committed a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result. --> The use of past tense here seems awkward as the fact is still true.

2. In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United States today, a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acts within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefits as a result. --> This seems better

AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , MagooshExpert , GMATGuruNY , VeritasKarishma , DmitryFarber , ChiranjeevSingh , VeritasPrepBrian , MartyMurray , other experts - please enlighten

Answer A

based on the none underline portion, (after the underline)

I can strike off B,C,D and E using parallelism

....if acted and if benefited...

Agree?


anyway, in this question, i work backward.
1. his or her (singular)
therefore, the preceding pronoun should be singular.
we end up with a "an employee"
we can strike off B -employees "were" acting

then continue to work backward,
2. based on logical,
the clause before should be in reference to singular employee,
strike off E

3. in C, corporations ...its employees
wrong subject-verb

4. in D, an employee ... commit
wrong subject-verb


Aside from the above,
on the condition - awkward
if it was while acting - wrong verb, past continuous/ changes the meaning
whenever-changes the meaning

Yes, but only in this specific case. One needs to remember that parallelism does not imply that various parts of the sentence should be in the same tense.

For example, following sentence would be correct:

If someone is dedicated and if someone has been working hard, that person will score well.

If someone is dedicated - Simple Present
If someone has been working hard - Present Perfect Continuous

Not the most ideal of sentences, but conveys the idea.

This is a question based on Tense usage, Parallelism and Sentence Structure.

Option A is correct as it maintains the structure of a conditional sentence.
It also has consistency of tense - a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.
So, Option A is the most appropriate.

The present continuous tense “is committing” is incorrect in this sentence as the sentence conveys a general truth according to the law. The simple present tense must be used to convey a general truth. There is also a mismatch between the present continuous tense and the simple past tense “committed”. Furthermore, the verb “were acting” is not parallel to “benefitted”. These two verbs must be parallel to each other as they indicate the two conditions under which the law applies. So, Option B can be eliminated.

In Option C -
1. There is a pronoun reference error – the singular pronoun ‘its’ cannot refer to the plural antecedent “corporations”.
2. The phrase “on the condition that the employee acts” is not parallel to the conditional clause “if the corporation benefited as a result”.
So, Option C can be eliminated.

In Option D –
1. There is disagreement between the subject and verb – the verb ‘commit’ is in the plural, while its subject ‘employee’ is singular.
2. The pronoun ‘it’ is ambiguous in the phrase “if it was while acting”.
3. The participle ‘acting’ is not parallel to the verb ‘benefitted’.
So, Option D can be eliminated.

Option E is awkward and wordy. It also contains an error of parallelism. The two clauses at the end of the sentence – whenever the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result are not parallel in structure.
So, Option E can be eliminated.

Therefore, A is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.

EducationAisle GMATNinja "if" is only used to present a condition. In such contractions we need a "If" and a "then" situation. But this sentence doesn't use "if" in that manner. We clearly need "if" however since the non-underlined part of the sentence has an "and if". And hence to maintain parallelism we need "if"

But how is this a correct usage?

mikemcgarry - thank you for your explanation!
GMATNinja
I know why choices B-E are wrong. But, don't you have a comma splice in choice A?

Complete Sentence 1: criminal law does not apply to corporations
Complete Sentence 2: a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime

So don't you need like semi-colon or period to separate these sentences instead of combining them with a comma?

i think you missed "but" - conjunction joining 2 clauses.

In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United Stated today, a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.

Hey mSKR

Can you help me with this question please. I am not sure what triggered the Parallism in this sentence .

Thanks

In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United Stated today, a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.
Step: split the sentence into small chunks ; remove unnecessary words

In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United Stated today, a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime , if the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.

so the core of sentence is ==
Subject Verb , conjunction BUT SUBJECT VERB ( Dependent clause) i.e.:

criminal law does not apply to corporations , BUT a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime

By now , you have understood the core of sentence and its meaning.

how about we keep this option on hold for now and lets see if we can reject other options easily?

Ok 1st part we have : criminal law does not apply to corporations
(B) a corporation is committing a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if those employees were acting

I would not reject it directly just because it is in continuous tense. i will reject because the meaning is non sensical tense wise
If X happens , then Y happens
If X happens, then Y is happening --> it may make sense in some scenario but at least in this scenario its better to use both in same tense ( present tense to display information . we donot use +ing because some action is not happening continuously).
Some people say it as parallelism, I would say it as wrong tense.
For me parallelism issue means if both parallel parts are using the same structure elements
If X happens, Y is happening - i wont say it as parallelism issue
If X happens, Y might have happened - no parallelism issue - both sides have nouns and verbs

When X happened , I went by car ,boat and by walk --> i would say this as parallelism issue because on parallelism marker : by car, boat( sentence element - preposition "by") is missing.


(C) corporations commit a crime whenever one of its employees does, on the condition that the employee acts= its has no antecedent
(D) corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting- wrong tense
(E) the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the employee acted- wrong tense

wrong options are rejected because of tense issues/SV agreement issue , I don't think use of different tense should be called as parallelism issue. But it doesn't matter to our end result of getting the right answer.

In summary, Once you understand the meaning and core structure, you can see the right and wrong options more easily. Sometimes even 2 options are grammatically correct and same as meaning wise. You would be able to make a decision why one option is better than others.

I just noticed that even Expert in this posthas not used the parallelism error in his explanation .
(sometimes we may not even know what could be the name of this error but it would not hurt our chances of getting the right answer as far as we 1. extract the meaning 2. understand the structure )

I hope it helps.

The sentence does in fact imply an if-then situation. Something like, "IF an employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and IF the corporation benefited as a result, THEN a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime." Logically, this holds up as a conditional statement.