|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1553
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
104
[0], given: 1
|
The attorney turned down the law firms offer of a position [#permalink]
 15 Mar 2008, 11:29
Question Stats:
21% (01:44) correct
78% (01:16) wrong based on 0 sessions
The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because she suspected that it was meant merely to fill an affirmative action quota with no commitment to minority hiring and eventually promoting.
(A) quota with no commitment to minority hiring and eventually promoting
(B) quota, having no commitment to minority hiring and eventually promoting
(C) quota and did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion
(D) quota, not reflecting a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion
(E) quota, not one that reflected that minority hiring and eventual promotion was a commitment
I chose D, but the OA is C. Can someone please explain why? I didn't choose C because I thought it's missing the relative pronoun "that." How come option C is not written this way:
for option c: quota and (that it) did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion
why is option C not written this way? cause i don't see how option C makes sense the way it is written. help!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 479
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
34
[0], given: 4
|
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]
15 Mar 2008, 12:12
I got C for parallelism. I think the presence of 'that it' would be redundant here.
_________________
-Underline your question. It takes only a few seconds!
-Search before you post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1553
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
104
[0], given: 1
|
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]
15 Mar 2008, 13:55
then how come there are many other examples of question sentences that would repeat "that it", but is considered redundant in this question? Isn't it considered parallel to repeat relative pronouns in order to secure clarity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 291
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
42
[0], given: 0
|
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]
15 Mar 2008, 17:26
for option c: quota and (that it) did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion I think that is not required above because it is a single clause. What you say would have been correct for the following. for option c: quota,(comma) and that it did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion. In the above two ICs are joined using "and" and we need a clear pronoun in the second sentense. Well .... a example I can make out He went back to home and slept. He went back to home , and he slept.  ..... is my explanation that bad 
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1635
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 25
Kudos [?]:
119
[0], given: 2
|
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]
28 Nov 2010, 10:20
OA is C. However I dont understand why there are 2 clasues: - suspected that it was meant merely to fill an affirmative action quota - did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion For me the second can be like a consequence of the first so the subordinate clause in D sounds perfect for me. Could anybody explain this point? Thanks in advance.
_________________
The sky is the limit
800 is the limit
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 173
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
11
[0], given: 7
|
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]
28 Nov 2010, 16:09
noboru wrote: OA is C. However I dont understand why there are 2 clasues:
- suspected that it was meant merely to fill an affirmative action quota
- did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion
For me the second can be like a consequence of the first so the subordinate clause in D sounds perfect for me.
Could anybody explain this point?
Thanks in advance. C is correct for parallelism and meaning. You can say ...she suspected it...and did not reflect in one sentence referring back to the original point however when you use D its contruction ",...not reflecting" what is not reflecting? the law firms choice or her suspicion? "not reflecting" cannot modify all that comes before it thats why you need to use 2 clauses here. Hope it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 1973
Location: India
Followers: 129
Kudos [?]:
665
[0], given: 170
|
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]
29 Nov 2010, 10:23
I looked at it this way. The word order in Choice A, B, D and E, with the modifier phrase touching the noun quota, with or without comma, gives the feeling the that it is the quota that is not having the commitment blah blah rather than the law firm. C is the only one that corrects this fatal error by inserting the conjunction ‘and’. This indeed breaks the tyranny of the modifier issue.Thus C is the answer. I couldn’t cut shorter than this.
_________________
” I truly believe in online learning, I have been a student in both an Ivy League school (brick and mortar) and in an online setting and I have learned 1,000 times more in an online setting. You do not have anyone there lecturing you and then you do the work, online you are made to do it all yourself. Amazing how different the results are. - Heather(a student)”
Alicia Helle, an online student at the UW, "Obtaining my degree online has been a blessing. With two small children, I am able to work when it is convenient for my family and me. I have nothing but positive comments and experiences from my time at UW-Stout.”
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 177
Followers: 62
Kudos [?]:
114
[0], given: 7
|
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]
29 Nov 2010, 12:05
Good discussion, all - a quick word on D: When you're using a present-tense verb, participial modifier (like "not reflecting..." here), it generally (or at least often) modifies the subject of the sentence. Here, that would be illogical - "not reflecting" doesn't describe the attorney or his/her decision, so D at best introduces some confusion as to the referent of the modifier (which should correspond to the quota). Because C leaves no such room for doubt, it's correct.
_________________
Brian
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
Save 10% on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
For a limited time, receive access to five Veritas Prep Computer Adaptive practice tests when you purchase a Veritas Prep GMAT book! Buy Now!
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1635
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 25
Kudos [?]:
119
[0], given: 2
|
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]
30 Nov 2010, 13:50
I cannot agree with that. "not reflecting" could be an adverbial modifier modifying the whole previous clause. What do you think on that? thanks in advance! VeritasPrepBrian wrote: Good discussion, all - a quick word on D:
When you're using a present-tense verb, participial modifier (like "not reflecting..." here), it generally (or at least often) modifies the subject of the sentence. Here, that would be illogical - "not reflecting" doesn't describe the attorney or his/her decision, so D at best introduces some confusion as to the referent of the modifier (which should correspond to the quota).
Because C leaves no such room for doubt, it's correct.
_________________
The sky is the limit
800 is the limit
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 177
Followers: 62
Kudos [?]:
114
[0], given: 7
|
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]
30 Nov 2010, 15:08
Hey noburu, Good point - and, actually, I think that gets to the crux of the issue here. We can disagree on the function of that modifier: I say that it could very well modify the attorney, you can claim that it's supposed to modify the clause immediately prior. The point is that there is room for debate - honestly, I can't say that either of is right or wrong, which is why D is incorrect. Because it leaves that ambiguity, it's not an effective modifier (particularly when compared to C, which leaves no room for doubt).
_________________
Brian
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
Save 10% on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
For a limited time, receive access to five Veritas Prep Computer Adaptive practice tests when you purchase a Veritas Prep GMAT book! Buy Now!
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2010
Posts: 217
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GPA: 3.59
WE: Corporate Finance (Entertainment and Sports)
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
13
[0], given: 33
|
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]
10 Dec 2010, 12:38
Couldn't you also argue that the words "not reflecting" is modifying quota, but should be modifying offer? noboru wrote: ok, i agree, i see your point. VeritasPrepBrian wrote: Hey noburu,
Good point - and, actually, I think that gets to the crux of the issue here. We can disagree on the function of that modifier: I say that it could very well modify the attorney, you can claim that it's supposed to modify the clause immediately prior. The point is that there is room for debate - honestly, I can't say that either of is right or wrong, which is why D is incorrect. Because it leaves that ambiguity, it's not an effective modifier (particularly when compared to C, which leaves no room for doubt). |
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Posts: 31
Location: Boston
Schools: Boston College, MIT, BU, IIM, UCLA, Babson, Brown
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 10
|
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]
10 Dec 2010, 12:49
I think C is the answer due to parallelism and proper sentence structure
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1635
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 25
Kudos [?]:
119
[0], given: 2
|
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]
10 Dec 2010, 12:52
I could argue that the modifier "not reflecting" can modify "offer", "quota", "attorney" (which would not make any sense) or "the whole previous clause"; and because of that, I have learned that there is ambiguity and therefore is wrong. And I agree that it should modify offer. USCTrojan2006 wrote: Couldn't you also argue that the words "not reflecting" is modifying quota, but should be modifying offer? noboru wrote: ok, i agree, i see your point. VeritasPrepBrian wrote: Hey noburu,
Good point - and, actually, I think that gets to the crux of the issue here. We can disagree on the function of that modifier: I say that it could very well modify the attorney, you can claim that it's supposed to modify the clause immediately prior. The point is that there is room for debate - honestly, I can't say that either of is right or wrong, which is why D is incorrect. Because it leaves that ambiguity, it's not an effective modifier (particularly when compared to C, which leaves no room for doubt). _________________
The sky is the limit
800 is the limit
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: SC: No relative pronoun?
[#permalink]
10 Dec 2010, 12:52
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, Marcab, Narenn, GetThisDone
|
close
