Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 07 Oct 2015, 13:05

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor

Author Message
TAGS:
Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 2759
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Followers: 360

Kudos [?]: 2866 [0], given: 278

Re: Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor [#permalink]  10 May 2013, 22:48
Expert's post
e-gmat: I can understand your anguish, as someone who missed walking the talk. if all of us feel we have made our points sufficiently, , that is a fair enough proposition for a discussion in a forum as this. Thanks for your contribution.
_________________
 Kaplan Promo Code Knewton GMAT Discount Codes Manhattan GMAT Discount Codes
Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 375
Location: Bangalore, India
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 2

Re: Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor [#permalink]  11 May 2013, 01:47
egmat wrote:
C. taking credit for the genesis of historic programs in public employment, relief, and social security for which the two women were in large measure responsible
Modifier error - Verb-ing modifier modifies the preceding noun, non-sensically implying that the programs took credit.

Preceding noun is Programs?
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish
GMAT - 99th Pecentile, MBA-ISB, Faculty @ http://www.EducationAisle.com

Our book Sentence Correction Nirvana available at online stores
Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi

Current Student
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Posts: 58
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Sustainability
Schools: Fisher '16 (M)
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 6

Re: Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor [#permalink]  12 May 2013, 22:21
egmat wrote:
Thanks Daagh for pointing out the BLATANT SV error. In the process of arguing about all the other stuff, we all totally missed the SV agreement error that is so evident in the original choice.

In reality, had I followed my usual process (the e-GMAT 3 step process), I would have caught this error in the first place...See this is what happens when one takes short cuts or when one is looking for a smoking gun. Now since I did not follow the process myself, I will take this upon myself to give a detailed analysis of this question.

Meaning Analysis

The two ladies (ER and FP) did not seek recognition by the press for something.
They allowed other people to take credit for something.
Something = genesis of specific historic programs.
These two ladies were in fact largely responsible for the genesis of these programs.

Error Analysis

Clause 1 - Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins sought recognition by the press, and
Clause 2 - both cautiously allowed others of the Roosevelt brain trust to take credit for the genesis of historic programs in public employment, relief, and social security
Clause 3 - that were in large measure
Clause 4 - what they had been responsible for.

SV - SV pairs are marked as shown. Subject "that" in clause 3 refers to "genesis" and hence the verb "were" does not agree in number with the singular "genesis". SV Agreement Error

Verb - The sentence is established in past time frame. All verbs except verb in clause 4 are in simple past tense. Past perfect tense in clause 4 appears correct. The context of the sentence clearly indicates that the action of creation of the programs happened before anyone took credit for their creation. So in that sense past perfect tense seems ok.

Pronoun - Pronoun "they" should logically refer to the two ladies. Even the context indicates this reference. Why? because it would not make sense to first state that the ladies allowed others to take credit and then say that these other people were indeed responsible for the genesis of the programs. If the others were indeed responsible for this task, then why would the sentence say that the ladies ALLOWED then to take the credit. But that being said, if there is a choice that clarifies this reference i.e. a choice that does not use a pronoun, then we should consider that one if that choice does not have any other errors. Pronoun ambiguity is not something based on which you should eliminate a choice right away.

Modifier - Relative pronoun modifier "that" refers to singular "genesis". There is a large prepositional phrase describes genesis. So in that sense "that" refers to "genesis of programs in public employment, relief, and social security".

Parallelism - The list of programs is parallel.

So SV error is the primary error in this sentence. Other than that, the original choice is not very precisely written sentence. There may be a slight chance of pronoun ambiguity as well.

Based on this, now we find the correct answer from the 5 given choices.

Process of Elimination

Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins sought recognition by the press, and both cautiously allowed others of the Roosevelt brain trust to take credit for the genesis of historic programs in public employment, relief, and social security that were in large measure what they had been responsible for.

A. to take credit for the genesis of historic programs in public employment, relief, and social security that were in large measure what they had been responsible for
SV Error

B. to take credit for the genesis of historic programs in public employment, relief, and social security for which the two women were in large measure responsible
Correct

C. taking credit for the genesis of historic programs in public employment, relief, and social security for which the two women were in large measure responsible
Modifier error - Verb-ing modifier modifies the preceding noun, non-sensically implying that the programs took credit.

D. taking credit for the genesis of historic programs in public employment, relief, and social security that were in large measure what they were responsible for
SV error as in Choice A, Modifier Error as in Choice C

E. taking credit for the genesis of historic programs in public employment, relief, and social security which were largely their responsibility
SV error as in Choice A, Punctuation issue - which is always preceded by a comma.

Thus choice B is the correct answer.

Take Away

The biggest TAKE AWAY from this question is that do not lose sight of a step by step process. Thoroughly analyze the original sentence. Don't just find one thing that too something that is not as deterministic, e.g. pronoun ambiguity, stylists issues, word order issues. This entire exercise was a great case in point. Knowing the grammar rules is not sufficient - we all discussed pretty heavy grammatical rules here. But ultimately the main difference among several choices was SV error. So please please please follow a step by step method to solve any SC question. Do not take short cuts...

I would like to thank daagh and Ashish for a wonderful discussion here. This discussion was a pleasure.

-Regards,
Payal

(PS: I hope I did not ramble too much here, its almost midnight here so I am not in my brightest of modes right now , but this question was intriguing enough that I could not keep myself from writing this. )

Hello Payal,
Thanks for the wonderful explanation, as always.
Here taking modifies others right ?
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1878
Followers: 1669

Kudos [?]: 5106 [0], given: 224

Re: Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor [#permalink]  13 May 2013, 06:39
Expert's post
Yes it does...It modifies "others of Roosevelt brain trust". My bad...The midnight timing did have an effect somewhere in my post...But let's take an opportunity here. I would love to hear why this is not correct? After all, per the author, others took credit for the work.

- Payal
_________________

Aiming to score 760+ on the GMAT? Attend our free webinars to learn how to:

[*] Master Number Properties
[*] Ace Critical Reasoning

The webinars will start at 7 AM PST on the 11th and 12th of July, 2015.

Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 235
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Re: Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor [#permalink]  13 May 2013, 07:15
egmat wrote:
Yes it does...It modifies "others of Roosevelt brain trust". My bad...The midnight timing did have an effect somewhere in my post...But let's take an opportunity here. I would love to hear why this is not correct? After all, others took credit for the work in the sentence.

- Payal

Well, I would say "taking" can modify "Roosevelt brain trust"...as in the following:

Man of the match was awarded to the most versatile player of the team winning the match.

"winning the match" clearly modifies "team". Similarly here:

..both cautiously allowed others of the Roosevelt brain trust taking credit for the genesis....

"taking credit" can modify "Roosevelt brain trust"; since this would not make sense, hence this option is incorrect.
Current Student
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Posts: 58
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Sustainability
Schools: Fisher '16 (M)
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 6

Re: Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor [#permalink]  13 May 2013, 07:18
egmat wrote:
Yes it does...It modifies "others of Roosevelt brain trust". My bad...The midnight timing did have an effect somewhere in my post...But let's take an opportunity here. I would love to hear why this is not correct? After all, others took credit for the work in the sentence.

- Payal

allowed noun to take - The two had the control. They permitted others to take credits.

allowed noun taking - They didnt have a choice or they do not have the control over the object. Somehow, they were ok with others taking credit.

Correct me if I am wrong.

to take modifies verb allowed.

taking modifies noun others.
Current Student
Joined: 25 Dec 2012
Posts: 58
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Sustainability
Schools: Fisher '16 (M)
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 6

Re: Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor [#permalink]  13 May 2013, 07:22
mohish wrote:
egmat wrote:
Yes it does...It modifies "others of Roosevelt brain trust". My bad...The midnight timing did have an effect somewhere in my post...But let's take an opportunity here. I would love to hear why this is not correct? After all, others took credit for the work in the sentence.

- Payal

Well, I would say "taking" can modify "Roosevelt brain trust"...as in the following:

Man of the match was awarded to the most versatile player of the team winning the match.

"winning the match" clearly modifies "team". Similarly here:

..both cautiously allowed others of the Roosevelt brain trust taking credit for the genesis....

"taking credit" can modify "Roosevelt brain trust"; since this would not make sense, hence this option is incorrect.

Hi Mohish,
others of trust - is a noun phrase. taking modifies others.

The rule is this

noun + preposition modifying noun + modifier

This modifier modifies the noun.

On the other hand

noun + prepositional modifier not modifying the noun + modifier.

This may not modify the noun.

Experts,
Kindly correct me if I am wrong.
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1878
Followers: 1669

Kudos [?]: 5106 [0], given: 224

Re: Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor [#permalink]  13 May 2013, 10:35
Expert's post
vigneshceg wrote:
egmat wrote:
Yes it does...It modifies "others of Roosevelt brain trust". My bad...The midnight timing did have an effect somewhere in my post...But let's take an opportunity here. I would love to hear why this is not correct? After all, others took credit for the work in the sentence.

- Payal

allowed noun to take - The two had the control. They permitted others to take credits.

allowed noun taking - They didnt have a choice or they do not have the control over the object. Somehow, they were ok with others taking credit.

Correct me if I am wrong.

to take modifies verb allowed.

taking modifies noun others.

Yes you are correct Vignesh. I will just add one more point in your explanation. Here is the simplified version of choice C:
Both cautiously allowed others taking credit for abc.
In this choice it is not clear what both allowed others to do. That important piece of information is missing. And as you rightly pointed out, that important piece of information has now been specified as a characteristic of "others".
_________________

Aiming to score 760+ on the GMAT? Attend our free webinars to learn how to:

[*] Master Number Properties
[*] Ace Critical Reasoning

The webinars will start at 7 AM PST on the 11th and 12th of July, 2015.

e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1878
Followers: 1669

Kudos [?]: 5106 [0], given: 224

Re: Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor [#permalink]  13 May 2013, 10:44
Expert's post
mohish wrote:

Well, I would say "taking" can modify "Roosevelt brain trust"...as in the following:

Man of the match was awarded to the most versatile player of the team winning the match.

"winning the match" clearly modifies "team". Similarly here:

..both cautiously allowed others of the Roosevelt brain trust taking credit for the genesis....

"taking credit" can modify "Roosevelt brain trust"; since this would not make sense, hence this option is incorrect.

You are correct Mohish in saying that "taking..." can modify "Roosevelt brain trust" as well. Now whether "taking..." modifies "trust" or "others of the trust" depends on the context of the sentence. In this sentence we know that the author intends to say that "others of Roosevelt brain trust" took credit of the work. So we know that the modifier "taking" modifies "others".

But as I explained above, this modification results in change of meaning. It also fails to indicate what "both" allowed "others" to do.

Hope this helps.
_________________

Aiming to score 760+ on the GMAT? Attend our free webinars to learn how to:

[*] Master Number Properties
[*] Ace Critical Reasoning

The webinars will start at 7 AM PST on the 11th and 12th of July, 2015.

e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1878
Followers: 1669

Kudos [?]: 5106 [0], given: 224

Re: Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor [#permalink]  13 May 2013, 10:54
Expert's post
vigneshceg wrote:
mohish wrote:

Well, I would say "taking" can modify "Roosevelt brain trust"...as in the following:

Man of the match was awarded to the most versatile player of the team winning the match.

"winning the match" clearly modifies "team". Similarly here:

..both cautiously allowed others of the Roosevelt brain trust taking credit for the genesis....

"taking credit" can modify "Roosevelt brain trust"; since this would not make sense, hence this option is incorrect.

Hi Mohish,
others of trust - is a noun phrase. taking modifies others.

The rule is this

noun + preposition modifying noun + modifier

This modifier modifies the noun.

On the other hand

noun + prepositional modifier not modifying the noun + modifier.

This may not modify the noun.

Experts,
Kindly correct me if I am wrong.

Hi Vignesh,
The rules that you have quoted may not be entirely correct. Please note that the sentence that Mohish quoted was fine. In fact his sentence followed the construction of "noun + preposition modifying noun + modifier" since "of the team" modifies "most versatile player". But as you can see the modifier that follows modifies "team".

Man of the match was awarded to the most versatile player of the team winning the match.

So here is my slight correction of the "rules" that you have in mind. Please bear in mind that these rules are applicable when the modifier at the end modifies nouns only.

noun1 + preposition modifying noun2 + modifier1
Modifier1 can modify noun1 or noun 2, depending upon the context.

On the other hand
noun1 + prepositional modifier not modifying the noun + modifier.
The modifier 1 cannot modify noun 1. It has to modify the preceding noun.

noun-modifiers-can-modify-slightly-far-away-noun-135868.html

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Payal
_________________

Aiming to score 760+ on the GMAT? Attend our free webinars to learn how to:

[*] Master Number Properties
[*] Ace Critical Reasoning

The webinars will start at 7 AM PST on the 11th and 12th of July, 2015.

Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 235
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Re: Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor [#permalink]  13 May 2013, 19:23
egmat wrote:
Yes you are correct Vignesh. I will just add one more point in your explanation. Here is the simplified version of choice C:
Both cautiously allowed others taking credit for abc.
In this choice it is not clear what both allowed others to do. That important piece of information is missing. And as you rightly pointed out, that important piece of information has now been specified as a characteristic of "others".

Hello Payal, In the following:

"to take modifies verb allowed".

I believe "to take" modifies "others" and not "allowed".

Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 235
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Re: Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor [#permalink]  13 May 2013, 21:31
egmat wrote:
You are correct Mohish in saying that "taking..." can modify "Roosevelt brain trust" as well. Now whether "taking..." modifies "trust" or "others of the trust" depends on the context of the sentence. In this sentence we know that the author intends to say that "others of Roosevelt brain trust" took credit of the work. So we know that the modifier "taking" modifies "others".

But as I explained above, this modification results in change of meaning. It also fails to indicate what "both" allowed "others" to do.

Hello Payal, for following OG question:

Many of the earliest known images of Hindu deities in India date from the time of the Kushan Empire fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or Gandharan grey schist.

OE says: Placement of the modifier "fashioned"...suggests that the "Empire "(the closest noun), not the "images of the deities", was fashioned out of these materials

From the "logic" of the sentence, it is quite clear that "images of the deities" were fashioned out of these materials. But still OE considers this incorrect.

Does this reflect some fundamental difference between -ing and -ed forms of the verb?
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 5491
Followers: 567

Kudos [?]: 111 [0], given: 0

Re: Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor [#permalink]  09 Oct 2014, 13:43
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.
Re: Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor   [#permalink] 09 Oct 2014, 13:43

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 33 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Being that she was secretary of labor, Frances Perkins 8 07 Jan 2008, 15:08
2 Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor 5 23 Sep 2007, 13:27
Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor was often 15 08 Jan 2007, 18:25
Neither First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt nor Secretary of Labor 8 13 Jul 2006, 19:14
Neither the mountains of incriminating evidence nor the 3 07 Feb 2006, 00:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by