Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 30 Jun 2016, 03:46

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The attorney turned down the law firms offer of a position

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1538
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 578 [0], given: 1

The attorney turned down the law firms offer of a position [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2008, 11:29
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

48% (01:42) correct 52% (01:09) wrong based on 47 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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: 470
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 146 [0], given: 4

Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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: 1538
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 578 [0], given: 1

Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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: 3

Kudos [?]: 82 [0], given: 0

Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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: 1629
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 784 [0], given: 2

Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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?

_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 169
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 7

Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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?

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.
Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 3507
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Followers: 528

Kudos [?]: 4269 [0], given: 320

Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 235
Followers: 200

Kudos [?]: 414 [1] , given: 27

Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Nov 2010, 12:05
1
KUDOS
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

Save $100 on live Veritas Prep GMAT Courses and Admissions Consulting Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options. Veritas Prep Reviews SVP Joined: 16 Jul 2009 Posts: 1629 Schools: CBS WE 1: 4 years (Consulting) Followers: 39 Kudos [?]: 784 [0], given: 2 Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink] ### Show Tags 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 GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 26 Jul 2010 Posts: 235 Followers: 200 Kudos [?]: 414 [1] , given: 27 Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink] ### Show Tags 30 Nov 2010, 15:08 1 This post received KUDOS 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 Save$100 on live Veritas Prep GMAT Courses and Admissions Consulting

Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.

Veritas Prep Reviews

Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2010
Posts: 216
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GPA: 3.59
WE: Corporate Finance (Entertainment and Sports)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 33

Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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 [?]: 9 [0], given: 10

Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2010, 12:49
I think C is the answer due to parallelism and proper sentence structure
SVP
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1629
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 784 [0], given: 2

Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 8112
Followers: 739

Kudos [?]: 152 [0], given: 0

Re: The attorney turned down the law firms offer of a position [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Aug 2015, 12:44
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
VP
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1294
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 86 [0], given: 715

Re: The attorney turned down the law firms offer of a position [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2015, 00:27
why A is wrong.

"with..." is correct because it is adverbial here.

pls help
Re: The attorney turned down the law firms offer of a position   [#permalink] 06 Sep 2015, 00:27
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
11 Pronoun Revision: Law firms and other professional services groups 9 26 Mar 2015, 20:05
1 Al Pacino had already turned down the role of Han Solo 1 03 Mar 2014, 18:04
2 The attorney turned down the law firm's offer of a position 1 23 Feb 2013, 10:54
Law firms and other professional services groups, academic 6 15 Aug 2007, 22:14
Law firms and other professional services groups, academic 12 28 Jul 2007, 20:33
Display posts from previous: Sort by