Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if

A. Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
- second 'it' has no clear referent

B. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.
- sentence logically wrong. 'makes missing signs...." is awkward and changes the meaning of the sentence

D. Executives’ being heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear.
- Out. Executives' being --> awkward construction.

C. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past.
- 'who' introduces heavily commmitted to a course of action (modifying executive). 'they' modifies signs correctly (plural). But 'it' again has no clear referent (is it pointing to trouble or action)

E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

Between C and E I'll pick E.

Why did eveybody think E is wrong? - Is that because it uses "being"?

Here "Being heavily committed " is used as a Gerund just as the Gerund Sleeping in the following sentence.

"Sleeping at work is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear."

which is correct.

OA is E

Hi Everyone-

This question comes down to options C and E. Most students reject option E immediately because they see “being’’ as if it is taboo in SC. However, it is important to remember that “being’’ is very much a part of GMAT SC when used correctly.
Proper uses of “being’’:

1. When “being’’ is used as a noun-
o Being the center of attention was not something Susan looked forward to when her book was published.
2. When the passive continuous verb tense “being’’ is required to communicate the meaning of the sentence-
o Elementary school students are being sent home to quarantine because of exposure to COVID.

So, we need not let the usage of “being” cause us to panic; we need to confirm “being” is correct both logically and grammatically.
Continue reading for the complete text and video solution to this question. Also, below find the link to our article on "being" entitled- “Being’’- Really the Black Sheep of the GMAT Family? And do not fear the usage of being any longer!




Sentence Structure

Meaning
This sentence talks about the blind commitment of an executive concerning a method or course of action that has been successful in the past. The author says that this type of commitment makes it likely to miss or misread the signs of an emerging problem when these signs begin to surface.



1. Subject-Verb Error Leading to Meaning Error: This sentence illogically says that “heavy commitment “ makes it likely to miss signs or misread the signs of the ensuing problem. However, we know from our meaning analysis that this meaning is illogical. The executive being heavily committed makes it likely that he or she will miss signs of trouble. Therefore, the subject “heavy commitment” does not make sense with the verb “makes,” and we have a subject-verb must make sense error.
2. Pronoun Error leading to Meaning Error: The antecedent for both the uses of “it “is unclear. This pronoun used in both instances may refer to either “heavy commitment” or “a course of action.” While the first instance stands ambiguous, the second stands illogical because, per the meaning analysis, the executive misses or misreads the signs of the emerging issue.
But this information is not presented clearly in the original sentence.

Note: The usage of the present perfect verb “has worked” is correct along with “in the past” because the author does not intend to say that the course of action worked well in the past and does not work anymore. The success of the course of action is not a one-time event. The author intends to say that the course of action has worked well so far.




A. Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
Incorrect: This choice has the errors discussed in the error analysis.

B. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.
Incorrect: 1. Subject-Verb Make Sense Error: Per this choice, the executive “makes missing signs…” likely. This SV pair does not make sense and the meaning conveyed is certainly not the intended meaning of the sentence.
2. Meaning Error: Per the intended meaning, because of the “heavy commitment “to a particular course of action, the executive misses the signs of emerging trouble. However, this blind commitment of an executive has been mentioned as additional information in this choice. It does not form the core meaning of the sense and hence leads to the meaning error.
3. Verb Tense Error: As mentioned in the error analysis, the success of the course of action is not a one-time event. Therefore, the use of the simple past tense verb “worked “ is incorrect.
4. Pronoun Error: The sentence talks about “signs of trouble “in general. Usage of “them” to refer to signs is better than the usage of “ones.”

C. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past.
Incorrect: .
1. Meaning Error: This choice repeats the meaning error we spotted in Choice B.
2. Modifier Error: The modifier “especially if it has worked well in the past “is intended to modify “a course of action.” This noun modifier should be placed closer to the noun entity that it modifies.

D. Executives' being heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear.
Incorrect: .
1. Parallelism Error: In this sentence, “or “is the parallel marker. So, we have a list here. The first entity of this list is “to miss,” which is not grammatically parallel to the second entity, “misinterpreting.”
2. Idiom Error: The phrase “Executives’ being heavily committed “is unnecessarily wordy compared to other options.
3. Pronoun Error: The non-possessive pronoun “them “should logically refer to the plural “Executives,” but it cannot do so because “Executives’” is a possessive noun.

E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
Correct: This choice correctly uses Being as a noun that has the correct verb is. All the modifiers are placed and worded correctly to convey the intended meaning of the sentence.




1. Make sure you always take the time to work through the original sentence and ask, “Does this make sense?” If the meaning is illogical, take the time to infer the logical intended meaning.
2. The presence of “being” in a sentence does not make the sentence incorrect. “Being” is very much a part of correct sentence structure. The use of “being” as a noun and subject of a sentence is grammatically correct.
3. Check out our article-“Being’’- Really the Black Sheep of the GMAT Family? (https://gmatclub.com/forum/being-really ... 66106.html)


Here is a video solution we made for this question:


I hope this helps clarify.
Cheers!
Stacey

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Concepts tested here: Pronouns + Verb Forms

• "to + base form of verb" is the correct infinitive verb form construction.
• A pronoun and its derivatives can only have one referent in a sentence.

A: This answer choice incorrectly uses the pronoun "it" both to refer to "a course of action" and as a placeholder pronoun; please remember, a pronoun and its derivatives can only have one referent in a sentence.

B: This answer choice incorrectly uses "one" to refer to "a course of action" and uses "ones" to refer to "signs"; please remember, a pronoun and its derivatives can only have one referent in a sentence.

C: This answer choice suffers from pronoun ambiguity, as the pronoun "it" lacks a clear referent.

D: This answer choice incorrectly uses "them" to refer to both "Executives" and "signs"; please remember, a pronoun and its derivatives can only have one referent in a sentence. Further, Option D fails to maintain the correct infinitive verb form structure, as it uses the present participle verb form ("verb+ing" - "misinterpreting" in this sentence) rather than the base form of the verb; please remember, "to + base form of verb" is the correct infinitive verb form construction.

E: Correct. This answer choice correctly uses the pronoun "one" to refer to only the noun "a course of action" and correctly uses "them" and "they" to refer only to the noun "signs". Further, Option E uses the correct infinitive verb form construction "to + base form of verb" - "to + misinterpret" in this case.

Hence, E is the best answer choice.

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Маgооsh Video explanation :

PRONOUNS, MEANING


This is my take on this question. It's a classic one.





Best,


Rod

'especially worked well in the past' is redundant. It's simply there to describe the course of action. So we can narrow down the sentence to:

Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

E seems to be the best of the lot in correcting this sentence. Again, removing 'especialy worked well in the past' gives us

Being heavily committed to a course of action is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear. --> 'They' modifies signs of trouble

E for me.

Agree with (C)..

An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past.

who is heavily commited to a course of action --> executive
to miss or misinterpret --> parallel structure
signs --> they
course (of action) --> it

(A): suffers from 3 problems::
1. first "it" has 2 referrent a) Heavy Commitment b) course of action
2. second "it" has same problem. Two referrent.
3. Passive construction:: "Heavy commitment by executives"

(B): An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.

one --> course of action

(B) also have multiple problems:
(B) conveys:: 1. executive makes missing signs or 2) executive makes misinterpreting course of action.

(D): 3 problems:
1. "it" refers to --> "being heavily commited to a course of action" instead of course of action.
2. to miss sign or misinterpreting (Not Parallel)
3. "being" is not prefered.

(E):
1. Passive construction
2. being is used.

I have a question here:
Is especially used here to introduce a Non-restrictive clause? Means is it used as a conjunction here? Am I correct??

Please feel free to correct me...

E, Are you guys kidding me..

You have a participle phrase, modifying a noun One.......

What is "Being heavily committed to a course of action", is it modifying. Nearest noun, Which is "One "....

Ritesh, I actually believe that "Being heavily committed to a course of action" in E serves as a noun phrase and as a subject, not as a modifier.

(The state of) being heavily comitted is likely to cause ...

Dear All,

This question is #101 of the 12th ed OG, and the official explanation can be found at page 736.

This sentence explains that an executive who is blindly committed to a proven course of action is likely to overlook or misinterpret indicators that the plan may no longer be working. The sentence needs to make clear who may misinterpret these indicators.

(A) The passive construction causes the sentence to be wordy and confusing; the reference for it is ambiguous, leaving hte reader with questions about who or what is likely to miss these signs.

(B) The sentence structure indicates that the executive,not his or her strategy, causes signs to be overlooked; the modifier when they do appear is misplaced.

(C) The reference for the pronoun it is unclear because many nouns have intervened between the appearance of the logical referent (course of action) and it.

(D) Misinterpreting should be an infinitive verb form to parallel miss; the phrasing throughout the sentence is wordy and akward.

(E) Correct. The grammatical structure of this sentence and the appropriate palcement of modifiers expreses the meaning clearly and concisely.

I think I have seen it before. IMO E.
Please underline the part.

Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

(A) Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
It - no clear referrent (commitment or action)
Similarly for THEM. After removing the middleman, sentence looks awkward:
Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
Who is to miss the signs? Incorrect.

(B) An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.

Similar to A. No clear referrent for ONE. Remove the middleman:
An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.

Exec misses the signs or makes missing signs. Meaning is modified. Incorrect.

(C) An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past.

especially if it has worked well in the past is misplaced modifier. It should be adjacent to the action, the noun being modified. Incorrect.

(D) Executives’ being heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear.

Executives’ being - incorrect usage.
THEM is incorrectly used for possesive [i]Executives’ being. Incorrect.[/i]

(E) Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

Though, we have BEING used here, but still rest of the part are correct as per usage. Let's remove the middleman:
Being heavily committed to a course of action is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

Correct.

Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
first step is to understand the logical meaning of the sentence, so let's break the sentence
Heavy commitment by an executive to something(a course of action) will make him likely to miss signs of trouble.....thus the state of being heavily committed is causing the individual to miss signs of.... when they do reappear

especially if it has worked well in the past....IT here is an ambiguous pronoun, it mat refer to heavy commitment or executive or course of action

makes it likely....it has ambiguous antecedent, it may refer to executive( being closer than Heavy commitment) or Heavy commitment


awkward( rather qualifies for the example of awkward sentences...


It's not the executive is likely to miss but it's the heavy commitment which is making him miss( that's what the original sentence meant to say)


them has no antecedent as Executives’ is in possessive form...poorly written

correct
also one thing to note that being is not always incorrect...

You can see a video explanation here: https://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-t ... stion/2177

Note that usage of "who" in B and C is OK - the issue lies more in the structure of the remaining sentence.

(B) says that "an executive" makes "missing signs of incipient trouble" - which doesn't make sense.

With (C) - the phrase

"especially if it has worked well in the past."

We don't know what "it" refers to here. If anything - "it" should "they" - but even so the meaning of what follows doesn't make sense with the first half of (C).

A. Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear. ---- Especially if it--- What does - it - denote? Commitment or action? Ambiguity –Antecedent and meaning of second - it - is also suspect. What does it likely make to miss signs?

B. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear. ---- How to make missing signs – really funny.

C. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past. --- The choice first says – signs and they – a plural noun and pronoun and in the next breath calls it in the singular- it -


D. Executives’ being heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear. ---Executives’ being – rather awkward; No proper antecedent for them; first them must refer to executives, which is not there and the second – them- by logic should refer to the signs. A pronoun having two referents is ungrammatical

E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear. __- being as part of a subject phrase is acceptable since we cannot form the subject without the being. Being is taboo, only when it is superfluous and dispensable.

E is the king.

This is a great (and rare) case of 'being' used correctly in a GMAT sentence. It can happen...

KW

Yes - that's the way to think about the usage of "being" - add the words "the state of" or "the act of" in front of it and see if it makes sense.

This is a good example of when the usage of the word "being" is actually used in the correct answer of a GMAT question. Most of the time, we call it a "red flag" word - it's not necessarily wrong, but you should look elsewhere first.

But this question fits the rare situation that would allow the usage of "being" to be correct.

You can see more details about "being" as a red flag word - and specific situations in which it is actually correct by looking at this PDF: https://www.gmatpill.com/ebook/GMATPill- ... atclub.pdf

Also, we've posted a video explanation for this question here (click show answer): https://www.gmatpill.com/gmat-practice-t ... stion/2177