According to psychologists, many dieters subconsciously prefer a diet

B: Totally changes the meaning since "uncertain" modifies "diet plan". In the original sentence, "uncertain" modifies "effectiveness".

"which" in C would modify "effectiveness", making the sentence convey incorrect meaning.

D says: "believe the plans", which is almost opposite of what the sentence is trying to say.

E does not have either a parallel structure or a independent clause after the semicolon.

I am quite a neophyte.. tried to apply POE as below -
A )a diet plan whose effectiveness is uncertain -- a consideration that, in case of failure, lets them blame the supposed ineffectiveness of the plan rather than their own lack of self-control
- CORRECT.
B) An uncertain diet plan in terms of effectiveness: such plans allow them to believe that the supposed ineffectiveness of the plan is to blame, rather than that they lack self-control in case of failure
- use of "rather than they lack" awkward.
C) diet plans with uncertain effectiveness, which will allow them to blame the supposed ineffectiveness of the plan, rather than to lack self-control, in case of failure
- To blame rather than to lack. Correct parallelism but NOT conveying the intended meaning.
D) uncertainly effective diet plans, allowing them to believe the plans that are supposedly ineffective, rather than that they lack self-control, in case of failure
- Effective is an adjective and uncertainly has been wrongly used with it.
E) diet plans uncertain in effectiveness; in case of failure, allowing them to believe that the plan itself is ineffective rather than that they lack self-control
- After semicolon, there should be a complete sentence. Also, allowing them to believe ... ... is not correctly modifying the intended clause.

What's OA?

hi Lucky2783,
the choices B to E can be straightway rejected..
however in A, your punctuation mark uncertain -- a consideration not clear
_________________

Hi Chetan,

I copied it from mgmat so i believe this is not a syntax/typo error.
thanks
lucky

hi lucky,
i have never seen such a punctuation mark '--', i think a comma or semi-colon may have been appropriate...
_________________

hi lucky,
i have never seen such a punctuation mark '--', i think a comma or semi-colon may have been appropriate...[/quote]

hhmm.. may be some one from Manhattan team will be able to shed more light . attached the picture for reference.

According to psychologists, many dieters subconsciously prefer a diet plan whose effectiveness is uncertain -- a consideration that, in case of failure, lets them blame the supposed ineffectiveness of the plan rather than their own lack of self-control.

A. a diet plan whose effectiveness is uncertain -- a consideration that, in case of failure, lets them blame the supposed ineffectiveness of the plan rather than their own lack of self-control

B. an uncertain diet plan in terms of effectiveness: such plans allow them to believe that the supposed ineffectiveness of the plan is to blame, rather than that they lack self-control in case of failure

C. diet plans with uncertain effectiveness, which will allow them to blame the supposed ineffectiveness of the plan, rather than to lack self-control, in case of failure

D. uncertainly effective diet plans, allowing them to believe the plans that are supposedly ineffective, rather than that they lack self-control, in case of failure

E. diet plans uncertain in effectiveness; in case of failure, allowing them to believe that the plan itself is ineffective rather than that they lack self-control

Hi,
the role of psycologists is limited to providing some info, because of the usage of 'according to'..
therefore whatever pronoun comes thereafter will refer to the noun in the main clause..
If there are two nouns in the main clause, then it can be ambiguous..

if in doubt, reverse the constr and see..
Many dieters subconsciously prefer a diet plan whose effectiveness is uncertain -- a consideration that, in case of failure, lets them blame the supposed ineffectiveness of the plan rather than their own lack of self-control according to psychologists....
_________________

How option E has fragment problem?

Hi Soham68, generally speaking, a semicolon connects two Independent clauses.

In E however, there is no Independent clause after the semicolon. Hence, E is a fragment.

You can watch our video on Independent and Dependent clauses.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses Sentence fragments, their application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.
_________________

The Modifier in the second part of this sentence -- describing what dieters will blame for the failure of a diet plan -- explains why dieters may prefer a potentially ineffective plan to an effective one. Therefore, the sentence must be structured in a way that correctly indicates this Meaning. Additionally, there should be proper Parallelism between the two possible explanations given for the failure of the plan (i.e., the plan's ineffectiveness versus the dieters' lack of self-control).

(A) CORRECT. A diet plan whose effectiveness is uncertain clearly and unambiguously indicates the nature of the uncertainty described: the effectiveness of the diet plan (not, say, the particulars of the plan itself) is uncertain. The following appositive modifier (a consideration that…) is properly used to describe the entire preceding idea, namely, the idea that the diet plan's effectiveness is uncertain. The modifier in case of failure is set off by a comma from the entire parallel structure, properly indicating that the entire parallel structure (not just one of the parts) describes the situation in which the diet plan fails. Finally, the structure X rather than Y is formed with proper parallelism: both X (the supposed ineffectiveness of the plan) and Y (their own lack of self-control) are noun phrases.

(B) The phrase an uncertain diet plan in terms of effectiveness is unclear: it seems to indicate that the diet plan itself, rather than the plan's effectiveness, is uncertain. There is a lack of agreement between the plural plans (at the start of the second clause) and the singular plan (in the first clause); better agreement would be achieved if such plans were replaced with such a plan. Finally, the modifier in case of failure is attached only to the second option in the parallel structure (that they lack self-control); this modifier should be placed so as to modify that entire parallel structure.

(C) This choice places the two infinitives to blame… and to lack… in parallel, thus creating a nonsense meaning: the (illogical) implication is that the diet plan will allow them to blame and [will allow them] to lack self-control. This is incorrect; the dieters' second option is to blame a lack of self-control.

(D) The phrase uncertainly effective diet plans is unclear. The comma + allowing... modifier should refer to the action of the preceding clause (many dieters subconsciously prefer…), but this meaning is nonsensical; it is not the case that, because the dieters prefer an uncertainly effective diet plan, this fact allows them to believe that the plan is ineffective. The two factors that could potentially be blamed are not written with proper parallelism: the first is a noun phrase (the plans…), while the second is an entire clause (that they lack self-control). Moreover, the first of these factors is written illogically: to believe the plans erroneously indicates that the dieters believe the plans themselves, when in fact the opposite is true, i.e., the dieters actually don't believe that the plan is effective.

(E) In this choice, the portion following the semicolon (allowing them to believe…) is a modifier, not a complete sentence. A semicolon must be followed by an independent clause (a complete sentence) containing both a subject and a verb.

In (A) , isn't "own self control" a kind of redundant phrase?

Hello sharanyasri,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe that we can resolve your doubt.

This phrase is slightly redundant, but you must keep in mind that redundancy is not a deal-breaker on the GMAT; in fact, it is the least important factor. Redundancy should only be considered in order to determine the best among otherwise error-free answer choices.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

Hi! I cannot seem to figure out why it is appropriate to use "whose" when referring to "a diet plan". Isn't whose used only with human objects? Can someone please explain?

I used to think the same thing. The truth is that "whose" is the only possessive relative pronoun, and it can be used to refer to any type of noun.
_________________

Can you please explain the answer, unable to understand anything said in comments

Got it! Thank you for the explanation.

who and whom may refer only to people, but whose may refer to ANYTHING.
Note that who may also refer to GROUPS of people.
An OA in GMATPrep:
The confederacy was a cluster of tribes who interacted with one another.
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________