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

It is currently 23 Aug 2014, 01:28

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The attorney turned down the law firms offer of a position

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1550
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 193 [0], given: 1

GMAT Tests User
The attorney turned down the law firms offer of a position [#permalink] New post 15 Mar 2008, 10:29
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

31% (01:43) correct 69% (01:16) wrong based on 15 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
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 477
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 4

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink] New post 15 Mar 2008, 11:12
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
SVP
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1550
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 193 [0], given: 1

GMAT Tests User
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink] New post 15 Mar 2008, 12:55
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
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 291
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink] New post 15 Mar 2008, 16:26
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.

:wall ..... is my explanation that bad :)
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 221 [0], given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink] New post 28 Nov 2010, 09:20
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


Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

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

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 7

Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink] New post 28 Nov 2010, 15:09
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.
Expert Post
Retired Moderator
avatar
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 2266
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Followers: 260

Kudos [?]: 1525 [0], given: 248

Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink] New post 29 Nov 2010, 09:23
Expert's post
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.
_________________

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

1 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 205
Followers: 96

Kudos [?]: 211 [1] , given: 20

Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink] New post 29 Nov 2010, 11:05
1
This post received
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
SVP
avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 221 [0], given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink] New post 30 Nov 2010, 12:50
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


Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

1 KUDOS received
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 205
Followers: 96

Kudos [?]: 211 [1] , given: 20

Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink] New post 30 Nov 2010, 14:08
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2010
Posts: 216
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GPA: 3.59
WE: Corporate Finance (Entertainment and Sports)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 33

GMAT Tests User
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink] New post 10 Dec 2010, 11:38
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
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Posts: 31
Location: Boston
Schools: Boston College, MIT, BU, IIM, UCLA, Babson, Brown
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 10

Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink] New post 10 Dec 2010, 11:49
I think C is the answer due to parallelism and proper sentence structure
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 1634
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Followers: 30

Kudos [?]: 221 [0], given: 2

GMAT Tests User
Re: SC: No relative pronoun? [#permalink] New post 10 Dec 2010, 11:52
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


Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Re: SC: No relative pronoun?   [#permalink] 10 Dec 2010, 11:52
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Experts publish their posts in the topic The attorney turned down the law firm's offer of a position Ironclaw 1 23 Feb 2013, 09:54
8 Turning Down an offer sometimesitsnows01 31 20 Feb 2012, 13:24
The attorney turned down the law firms offer of a position gmacvik 12 07 Jan 2006, 08:24
The attorney turned down the law firms offer of a position macca 4 16 Sep 2005, 07:17
The attorney turned down the law firm s offer of a position christoph 3 16 Mar 2005, 10:10
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The attorney turned down the law firms offer of a position

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.