By applying optimization techniques commonly used to plan operations

By applying optimization techniques commonly used to plan operations, it is possible to determine how much effort ought to be devoted to each of a company’s products in order to meet its goals in both the short and long terms.
a. it is possible to determine how much effort ought to be devoted to each of a company’s products in order to meet its goals in both the short and long terms
Here, there is a gerund problem 'the short and long terms'.
b. a company’s managers can determine how much effort should be dedicated to each of the company’s products in order to meet its short and long term goals

c. it can be determined by company managers how much effort ought to be devoted to each of the company’s products in order to meet its goals, both short and long term
There is unnecessary wording here at the end
d. it may be possible for company managers to determine how much effort should be dedicated to each of these products in order to meet the company’s short and long term goals
Here, what does 'these' refer to in this sentence
e. managers at a company can determine how much effort ought to be dedicated to each of these products in order to meet the company’s goals in both the short and long term
Again, what does 'these' refer to


So, I will go with B

Heres my take on this:

D: it may be possible for company managers to determine how much effort should be dedicated to each of these products in order to meet the company’s short and long term goals

it may be possible shows uncertainity, while the original sentence has certainity so i'm going to eliminate this answer.

E: managers at a company can determine how much effort ought to be dedicated to each of these products in order to meet the company’s goals in both the short and long term.

These does not have a clear antecedent. The operation's products? Off with this option.

A,B,C all seem pretty close.

C: it can be determined by company managers how much effort ought to be devoted to each of the company’s products in order to meet its goals, both short and long term.

its does not have a clear antecedent. In this sentence it seems to refer to the goals of the company's products. So off with this option too.

A: it is possible to determine how much effort ought to be devoted to each of a company’s products in order to meet its goals in both the short and long terms

Again, its does not seem to have an antecedent.

B: a company’s managers can determine how much effort should be dedicated to each of the company’s products in order to meet its short and long term goals

Here the company is mentioned in the first line itself. A company's managers can... in order to meet its short and long term goals.

The word managers can be removed and still the sentence would be fine.
A company can...in order to meet its...goals.

Also...each of the company's products... is written instead of 'each of its products' to avoid reference to 'managers'.

So B seems to be the best answer.

Of course since you have already mentioned that B is the answer, our minds will be a bit biased. Would help if you would put the answer in a spoiler.

Hey all, I know I'm bumping a very old thread, but I just encountered this problem, and consider all the choices to be wrong.

I got the question correct, choosing B as the lesser of five evils.

However, it uses the pronoun 'its' which does not have a proper antecedent. You can assume that the antecedent should be 'the company'. However, if you notice, 'company' never exists as a noun in the sentence, only "a company's managers" and "the company's products".

Am I missing something here?

‘Its’ is a possessive pronoun and the ‘company’s’ is also a possessive noun. What more is required for proper reference? May I know the reason for asking for a possessive pronoun to stand for a non-possessive noun such as “a company”.

Just based on sentence structure, the only possible answers can be narrowed down to (B) and (E).
Both allow the "-ING" verb to describe the subject of the main part of the sentence after the comma.

However in (E), it's unclear what "these products" is referring to.

In (B), it is much clearer when the sentence says "company's products." Sure, the sentence does not directly mention "company" earlier in the sentence. Instead it says "a company's managers"---but still it's pretty clear what we're talking about here. Much clearer than it is in (E).

Could (B) have been written to be even clearer by directly saying "company" instead of "a company's..."---sure. But remember the GMAT exam is never black or white. It's not about what is absolutely technically correct. Doing well is about choosing the best of the available answer choices. And in the case, don't waste time by mulling over minute details in (B). (B) is the best from the list.

I am going for A, simply because all other options have included "manager". What is the guarantee that managers are who are supposedly planning operations? Aren't we unnecessarily introducing a new term?

Just a BIG guess.

The essence of a dangling modifier is the absence of the modified noun and we are required to bring it into the sentence, although it may not be there in the original. For example:

After frying in the pan, the entire lot of fish was eaten.

Who ate the fish? This is tricky and GOK; so this is a defective sentence. Now let’s make it more sensible by introducing a new factor namely the doer of the action or the modified noun of the participial modifier after frying in the pan.

After frying in the pan, the cook ate the entire lot of fish.

Now this sentence is better. Thus in dangling modifier cases, the introduction of the doer turns the sentence meaningful and straight. This is how the term manager has crept in royally and grammatically in the correct choice in the given text

Hi Shraddha,

I was also between stuck in the end between B and E but then E was knocked because of the parallelism error in both the x and the y, however, I want to understand isnt it referring back to Company and then I remember reading about possessive poison.

Please confirm!

Thanks in advance!

Hi there,

This is the sentence with Choice E:

By applying optimization techniques commonly used to plan operations, managers at a company can determine how much effort ought to be dedicated to each of these products in order to meet the company’s goals in both the short and long term.

In this sentence, along with the parallelism issue that you have mentioned, “each of these products” has no reference. What are these “each of these products”? Does the sentence contain a list of products to which this phrase can be referred? No. This reference error makes choice E incorrect.

Now let’s analyze the sentence with choice B:

By applying optimization techniques commonly used to plan operations, a company’s managers can determine how much effort should be dedicated to each of the company’s products in order to meet its short and long term goals.

Pronoun “its” is a possessive noun. This means it must refer to a possessive noun. There is only one possessive noun in the sentence – “company’s”. So without any ambiguity, possessive “its” is referring to “company’s”. If we replace “its” with “company’s” we get the logical intended meaning of the sentence:

By applying optimization techniques commonly used to plan operations, a company’s managers can determine how much effort should be dedicated to each of the company’s products in order to meet company’s short and long term goals.
Hence, this choice is error free.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Official Explanation:

This sentence begins with a modifier, yet leaves absent who will be applying optimization techniques (This is termed a "dangling" modifier.) Also, the sentence is unnecessarily wordy in its use of the phrases “ought to” and “in both the short and long terms.”

(A) This choice incorrectly repeats the original sentence.

(B) CORRECT. The sentence correctly places “a company’s managers” adjacent to the modifier such that the meaning is clear, and the sentence is otherwise concise.

(C) This answer does not correct the original modifier error. It also weakens the sentence by replacing the active voice with the passive voice in its use of “can be determined by company managers.” The sentence’s concluding use of “goals, both short and long term” is awkward.

(D) This answer does not correct the original modifier error. In this choice, the phrase “may be possible” is unnecessary and weakens the sentence. This choice also incorrectly uses the word “these,” as the products have not been referenced earlier in the sentence.

(E) This sentence resolves the modifier issue, but incorrectly uses the word “these,” as the products have not been referenced earlier in the sentence. This choice is also wordy in its use of “ought to” and “in both the short and long term.”

HOPE IT HELPS

I encountered this question in a Manhattan Mock GMAT. My doubt here is whether "its" here can refer to company in option (B) since "company" is in possessive case here.

Dear madhavmarda
I'm happy to respond. As always, MGMAT is spot-on correct; they write excellent questions.

You see, a noun in the possessive cannot be the antecedent of a pronoun unless the pronoun is also in the possessive. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-pronoun-traps/

Does this make sense?
Mike

Hello,

I am not sure about the proper usage of the auxiliary verb "should". I read that it is used to express moral obligation and not f.e. to express likelihood or conditions.
However, in a CAT I answered the following question:

By applying optimization techniques commonly used to plan operations, it is possible to determine how much effort ought to be devoted to each of a company’s products in order to meet its goals in both the short and long terms.

Correct answer: a company’s managers can determine how much effort should be dedicated to each of the company’s products in order to meet its short and long term goals

Is "should" properly used here? It is definitely not a moral obligation that is described in the sentence above...

Thank you very much in advance.

Dear Lauch,
I'm happy to help. In case it's helpful, here's a blog article about auxiliary verbs:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/auxiliary- ... -the-gmat/

Your question is much more specific. Here's what I'll say. It's very hard to create simple rules that encapsulate the full use of a word. Language is a living and complex thing. It's true that "should" is used to express moral obligations, but more general, it expresses obligations under all sorts of contingencies. The general format is:
If you want X, you should do Y.
If no particularly contingency is explicit, then the assumed contingency is something along the lines of "if you want to be a good person" or "if you want to go to heaven when you die" or something of that sort. All kinds of other contingencies can be expressed.
If you want to get rich, you should work for a hedge fund.
If you want to lose weight, you should cut all sweets from your diet.
If you want to rob a bank, you first should perfect your safe-cracking skills.
The context may be amoral or completely immoral. The word "should" has no intrinsic moral valence.

The sentence from the CAT is flawless.
A company’s managers can determine how much effort should be dedicated to each of the company’s products in order to meet its short and long term goals.
Here, the contingency is expressed in an infinitive of purpose, so the context is clear, and in that context, the prescriptive "should" is 100% justified. The word "should" always implies some kind of goal, and as long as that goal or target is made clear, the effort to reach that goal or target makes perfect sense. Once again, it's only when no explicit goal is mentioned (e.g. "You should treat others with kindness") that there is an implied moral/ religious/ spiritual thrust to the statement.

An entirely separate use of "should" is also grammatically correct. It's a sophisticated way to talk about future possibility:
"Should Hillary Clinton be elected in 2016, she would be in a position to replace Supreme Court judges."
This is a hypothetical statement. Note the use of the subjunctive. We don't know whether Clinton will be elected. This is a more sophisticated way to state the future conditional statement:
"If Hillary Clinton is elected in 2016, she would be in a position to replace Supreme Court judges."
Either is perfectly correct.

It's hard to formulate simple rules that capture the living complexity of English. In fact, it's impossible to arrive at GMAT SC mastery by learning some ideal set of rules. The only way you attain mastery is to encounter all the variations present in sophisticated writing, and to do this, you need to develop a habit of reading.
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/how-to-imp ... bal-score/

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi,
1) firstly the modifier in the beggining clause should have a recipient in the main clause and the recipient will be a person so B and D are the only viable options..
2) without looking any further, D can be eliminated because of ambiguous 'these' in 'these products'. there is no reference of 'these' anywhere.. so B is the answer..
Apart from this, short and long term goals is better than company’s goals in both the short and long term..
ans B

Hello chetan2u ,

There is no antecedent for 'its' in the correct option. the word company is not mentioned anywhere. The company's products cannot have goals. So isn't this option incorrect.
Or is this usage okay? In the first go I eliminated this option for the above reason. But after looking at other options, this one seemed correct. So, can you please let me know if this rule is flexible or there is some error in the correct option.

Hi Gagan, actually its is used perfectly in option B because its is a possessive pronoun and so, will most appropriately refer to a possessive noun (company's in this case).