As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring in

Hi skamal7
Your question is really good!

The rule is:
You CAN OMIT the relative pronouns such as that, which, who,...... if they modify an OBJECT of the sentence.
You CANNOT OMIT the relative pronouns if they modify SUBJECT of the sentence.

Examples:
(1) I forgot a book that I borrowed at the library last week. ==> "a book" is the object of the sentence [I borrowed a book at the library last week], you can omit the relative pronoun "that
Right: I forgot a book I borrowed at the library last week

(2) The professor who taught me math in high school is really smart ==> "the professor" is the subject of the sentence ==> you cannot omit "who"
Wrong: The professor taught me math in high school is really smart.

Hope it helps.

As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments, the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales they would in the past have conceded
to rivals.
(A) they would in the past have conceded to rivals
(B) they would have conceded previously to their rivals
(C) that in the past would have been conceded previously to rivals
(D) it previously would have conceded to rivals in the past
(E) it would in the past have conceded to rivals ANSWER

Notice how in the first part of the sentence the possessive pronouns 'its' refers to company. Therefore you can safely infer that company is singular and should take 'it' as a pronoun (which for collective nouns is usually the case: they are considered singular).

Notice in (D), previously...in the past... The two are the exact same thing. Therefore we have a case of redundancy.

Hope that helps .
_________________

A) "they" is wrong

B) "they" is wrong

C) "in the past" and "previously" are redundant

D) "in the past" and "previously" are redundant

E) GOOD

3/2 split right in the beginning.

- "As its" declares that the company is singular. :. Kill A & B.
- Eliminate C for redundancy with "in the past" and "previously"
- D or E?
- Eliminate D for same reason.
- E is Last Man Standing.

Answer is E.

As per your question, the beauty of the process of elimination is it doesn't matter. Every answer is wrong somehow. Furthermore, you are in fact misreading that. That part at the end isn't an independent clause so much as a modifier.

Helpful?

As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments, the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales they would in the past have conceded to rivals.

(A) they would in the past have conceded to rivals
(B) they would have conceded previously to their rivals
(C) that in the past would have been conceded previously to rivals
(D) it previously would have conceded to rivals in the past
(E) it would in the past have conceded to rivals

This may be a stupid question as I am asking a very basic grammar rule but I need to understand this so please help me.
Source OG 12

As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments, the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales it would in the past have conceded to rivals.

I was able to choose the correct answer but I have a different question here.

Subordinate Clause: As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments
Main Clause: the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales

Extra clause/Dependent: it would in the past have conceded to rivals.

My question is how the main clause and extra/dependent clause are joined without any subordinate conjunction such as that etc.

hi PQHAI,
I completely agree with your view point.However when a sentence has more than one subject then the sentence is called a run-on sentence.
The company has become -one subject and verb followed by it would another subject verb. So this should be a run-on sentence right..Please clarify

Hi skamal7

The definition of run-on sentence is: A run-on is a sentence in which two or more independent clauses (i.e., complete sentences) are joined without appropriate punctuation or conjunction.

This is a correct sentence:
the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales it would in the past have conceded to rivals.

The second part "it would in the past have conceded to rivals" is independent sentence? The sentence has subject and main verb. However, it will make no sense unless it comes with the previous clause.

Key point is: "independent sentence".

Hope it clarifies.

As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments, the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales they would in the past have conceded to rivals.

(A) they would in the past have conceded to rivals. Needs Singular pronoun for Company
(B) they would have conceded previously to their rivals. Needs Singular pronoun for Company
(C) that in the past would have been conceded previously to rivals
(D) it previously would have conceded to rivals in the past
(E) it would in the past have conceded to rivals

That is why. It is always said that in SC don't find right ans but eliminate the wrong choices
_________________

B they would have conceded previously to their rivals

C that in the past would have been conceded previously to rivals

D it previously would have conceded to rivals in the past

E it would in the past have conceded to rivals

As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments, the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales they would in the past have conceded to rivals.

B they would have conceded previously to their rivals

C that in the past would have been conceded previously to rivals

D it previously would have conceded to rivals in the past

E it would in the past have conceded to rivals

A) they would in the past have conceded to rivals
Subject-Verb number agreement error. companies -> it
B) they would have conceded previously to their rivals
Subject-Verb number agreement error. companies -> it, their -> its
C) that in the past would have been conceded previously to rivals
redundancy
D) it previously would have conceded to rivals in the past
redundancy
E) it would in the past have conceded to rivals
Correct.
Since the underlined portion is a clause, better if it is connected to the preceding clause with a proper connector such as "which".
But the correct answer is the one that remains after eliminating answer choices that are bad in comparison.

Edit:
Related link to the same question
https://gmatclub.com/forum/as-its-sales-of-computer-products-have-surpassed-those-of-134317.html

Thanks

Option E

A) & B) the company . . . they : Wrong pronoun

C) market sales that. . . : Changes the intended meaning

D) it previously. . . past : No need to repeat past after mentioning previously, makes it unnecessarily wordy


Sent from my MotoG3-TE using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Hi, I am confused about the construction of the phrase, I was looking for a that to connect the two clauses and found it only in D which is wordy.

the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales they would in the past have conceded

Is it not two independent clauses?

Here you're looking at a relative (dependent) clause in which the that has been "understood" away.

The company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales it would in the past have conceded to rivals.

is a shorter way of saying

The company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales that it would in the past have conceded to rivals.

Is the LHC in your name for the Large Hadron Collider by any chance?
_________________

As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments, the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales they would in the past have conceded
to rivals.
(A) they would in the past have conceded to rivals
(B) they would have conceded previously to their rivals
(C) that in the past would have been conceded previously to rivals
(D) it previously would have conceded to rivals in the past
(E) it would in the past have conceded to rivals

Company is collective noun and singular.also previously and in the past means the same and redundent.

Greetings everyone
I have a question regarding option C.
If we remove previously from C would it be correct then, ignoring passive construction.
Please help.

Hello arvind910619,


I would be glad to help you with your query.

Use of previously most certainly creates redundancy error in Choice C. So removing this word from Choice C will surly take care of this error.

The passive construction in Choice C fails to convey that it is the company that would have conceded the mass market sales to rivals in the past. Since this information is exclusively present in the original choice, removal of this information in Choice C leads to distortion in the intended meaning. Hence, use of passive voice actually makes Choice C incorrect.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

just solved it in 2.5 minutes, I hate myself.

1. The company ---> it has to be "it", not "they" ---> A, B are out.
2. "Previously" and "in the past" are redundant ---> C, D are out.

E