Studies show that teachers unconsciously assume that

Tough question, Mike +1 kudo

IMO, C is correct because the structure should be: "Studies show that teachers unconsciously assume ..........., and when teachers neglect ............". Who neglects to provide the academic challenges? ==> should be teachers, not students

(A) in neglecting to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their intellectual potential
Wrong. "in neglecting" is not parallel. "their" is not clear, we may think their modifies students.

(B) when they neglect providing the academic challenges that would be catalyzing their intellectual potential
Wrong. "they" modifies students. "Neglect to do" sounds more idiomatic than "neglect doing".

(C) when teachers neglect to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their students’ intellectual potential
Correct. Clear meaning.

(D) in neglecting in providing the academic challenges that would catalyze their students’ intellectual potential
Wrong. "in neglecting" is not parallel.

(E) in being neglectful with respect to providing the academic challenges that would be catalyzing their intellectual potential
Wrong. " in being neglectful with respect to" sounds awkward. "their" is not clear, we may think their modifies students.

Please correct if I'm wrong.

Thanks.

The first thing is to decide who has to provide the impetus? Is it the students themselves or the teachers? If the students have to provide the necessary challenges themselves, why will they then need a teacher? So the onus is entirely on the teachers. In addition, this fact should be stated in the text clearly without ambiguity

(A) in neglecting to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their intellectual potential --- The teachers are amiss in the subordinate clause. A classic case of dangling modification.

(B) when they neglect providing the academic challenges that would be catalyzing their intellectual potential --- they – doubtful reference – whether ‘they’ refers to students or teachers has not been made clear.

(C) when teachers neglect to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their students’ intellectual potential---- clear modification and no dilemma of ambiguous references; ‘their’ clearly marks the teachers.

(D) in neglecting in providing the academic challenges that would catalyze their students’ intellectual potential-----1. Wrong modification; the teachers should come immediately after the comma. 2. In neglecting in providing - awful idiom.

(E) In being neglectful with respect to providing the academic challenges that would be catalyzing their intellectual potential --- the pronoun can refer to either the teachers or the students; secondly in being neglectful is rather inelegant

Nice practice question ; deserves a kudo.
_________________

I guess pronoun ambiguity is being tested. C perfectly represents the role of teachers and that of students as presented in the SC.

Well, I would say the logical issue of what modifies what is also a big part of this sentence. Suppose there were no pronouns present, and think about (A) ------
... in neglecting to provide the academic challenges, the students ....
The students aren't the ones who would provide, or neglect to provide, the academic challenges. The GMAT loves logical glitches like this. Remember, the GMAT SC tests logic as much as it tests grammar.
Mike
_________________

C should be the answer

1) A comma immediately after underlined part indicates that the underlined part should be subordinate clause and should logically be connected to the following main clause students………….it implies. This is because later is consequence of an earlier action

2) The usage of their is ambiguous. I also have doubt that that may be referring to providing

3) Correct Choice. Corrects both errors presented above.

4) Incorrect for the same reasons sited in Choice A and B

5) wordy and awkward usage in being neglectful with respect to providing the academic challenges.

Regards,

Narenn

[quote="mikemcgarry"]Studies show that teachers unconsciously assume that students who regularly perform poorly on assessments have below-average abilities, and in neglecting to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their intellectual potential, the students often accept this damaging diagnosis and the life limits it implies.
(A) in neglecting to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their intellectual potential
(B) when they neglect providing the academic challenges that would be catalyzing their intellectual potential
(C) when teachers neglect to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their students’ intellectual potential
(D) in neglecting in providing the academic challenges that would catalyze their students’ intellectual potential
(E) in being neglectful with respect to providing the academic challenges that would be catalyzing their intellectual potential



Good testing of modifier...

clearly if you understand the meaning of the sentence you can nail this one seconds
since:
"in neglecting to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their intellectual potential"===>this one followed by students so it is modifying students....but it is not the students who are neglecting to provide academic challenges..instead teachers are neglecting...

so now if you scan through....you will find only C IS MAKING SENSE.

SKM

I understand that this question has a pronoun error and we can get the best answer by correcting the pronouns. But my question is, i have learned that 'when' is used to only refer to a time frame. How can the usage of 'when' be correct here?

Dear jacobneroth
I'm happy to respond.

Yes, "when" always refers to a time frame, but we have many ways of referring to a time frame. One way is to refer to the particular time frame during which a particular action takes place or took place.

When Athens condemned Socrates to death . . .
When Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo . . .
When a pope dies . . .
When Obama has his press conference tomorrow . . .
When a soccer team has a corner kick . . .
When a GMAT student asks a question . . .
When teachers neglect to provide the academic challenges to their students . . .

All of those are particular time frames. Some of them are unique one-time-only time-frames, and some of them are recurrent and maybe even frequent. For example, soccer is played all over the world, so it may happen hundred of time each day that a soccer team somewhere on the planet has a corner kick. The frequency doesn't matter. At that particular time and place, the action of a corner kick is happening, and the "when" refers to events during that very specific time frame.

Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Official Explanation

Split #1: modifier problem. The sentence begins with an independent clause, then a comma and the word "and", introducing a second independent clause, the main clause of which follows the underlined part. If the underlined part begins with participial phrase, this must modify "the students", the subject of the second independent clause. This is problematic, because the students don't "neglect to provide the academic challenges" --- that's a teacher's job, not a student's job! Choices (A) & (D) & (E) all have a participial phrase that illogically modifies "the students", so these are incorrect.

Split #2: choice (B) makes the classic repeated pronouns mistake. "… when they [the teachers] neglect providing the academic challenges that would be catalyzing their [the students'] intellectual potential …" The pronoun "they"/"their" refers to two different antecedents in the same sentence! That's 100% illegal on the GMAT. (B) is incorrect.

This leaves (C) as the only possible answer.

Could you please explain this one also AndrewN? Thanks a lot in advance.

I couldn't understand the sentence, highlighted in red:
If the underlined part begins with participial phrase, this must modify "the students", the subject of the second independent clause.

While I understand the ambiguity between "teachers" and "students" in this sentence, I am not so clear why the participle phrase after "and" cannot refer to the "teachers", which is also the subject of the previous sentence?

Studies show that teachers unconsciously assume that students who regularly perform poorly on assessments have below-average abilities, and
(A) in neglecting to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their intellectual potential

Hello, Pankaj0901. Although I agree that the participle on its own could modify teachers, if that were so, we would expect to see them mentioned again after the underlined portion, where we get students instead. To be clear, the following standalone variant would be fine (changes are highlighted):

1) Studies show that teachers unconsciously assume that students who regularly perform poorly on assessments have below-average abilities, and in neglecting to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their students' intellectual potential, the teachers...

In the original sentence, because we cannot negotiate the students immediately after the underlined portion, and especially because their prior to the comma does, in fact, refer to this group rather than the teachers, we find ourselves in a logical quandary to qualify the participle. It seems to refer to teachers until we jump across the comma, at which point a more compelling case can be made, grammatically at least, for the students.

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew
_________________

I completely got the point. Thank you for such nice explanations as always @AndewN. You have made my process of learning so easy I had not expected. Thanks to @GMATCub for having such great people under one umbrella in this forum!