The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and

Dear domfrancondumas

I'm happy to help.

It's true that if we just had ...
(1) The board doesn't permit leaves of absence
(2) The board doesn't permit leaves of absence to be taken.
... then maybe we could argue that the extra phrase would be redundant and/or unnecessary. In this stripped down version, it's not perfectly clear, but one could make an argument that the phrase is redundant. BUT, we always must consider the full context of the sentence. Here's version (C):

(C) The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and so inflexible that it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are justifiable.

In this sentence we want to say that the board "refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences", and then we want to emphasize that it refuses discussing them even when these leaves of absences are justifiable. Consider version (C) without the words "to be taken" ---

(C') The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and so inflexible that it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when they are justifiable.

Hmmm. When it is justifiable to discuss the leave? When it is justifiable to permit the leave? When it is justifiable to take the leave? The "to be taken" makes crystal clear exactly what about the leaves is justifiable. Is this clarification necessary? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact that there's even a question about whether it could be necessary means that including it cannot be dismissed a redundant because the phrase may be serving a necessarily clarifying purpose for someone.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Dear Virgo,

I'm happy to respond.

I will say a couple things. First of all , here's the ending of option (B)
... refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when it is justifiable.
Many students make the mistake of view grammar as a kind of mathematical exercise, without taking into account other layers of the sentence. In fact, grammar is always rooted in logic and meaning, which are the truly powerful currents in a sentence. Grammar is a surface feature that simply reflects these depths.
Think about the situation. What is the controversial item? The "leaves of absences" provide the hot controversy here. Are they permitted or not? Are we even going to discuss whether they are permitted? The "leaves of absences" are the focal point of this controversy. Thus, when we specifying the parameters of this controversy, it makes the most sentence to focus on the heart of the controversy---even when the leaves of absences are justifiable. It would be rhetorically & logically awkward to end that sentence: "even when permitting the leaves of absences is justifiable." That is somewhat awkward phrasing, and also it sounds evasive: why are we shifting the focus to something other than the heart of the controversy? Anything that sounds evasive sound indirect, and the business world & the GMAT like clear, forthright, direct language. Any sensible person would not do business with someone who seemed to be hiding something, and the language preferences on the GMAT reflect this. These ideas form one important consideration about option (B).

A much more tangible consideration in (B):
... it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when it is justifiable.
The same pronoun typically cannot refer to two different antecedents in the same sentence. If there are two independent clauses, and the pronoun uses are separate enough, then sometimes this is OK. In this sentence, though, the use is too close, and the same pronoun is referring to two different things. That's an automatic disqualifier on the GMAT SC.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi Mike
whats the problem with sentence A&D`s construction...............Whats the use of "even when"

Whats the difference between even when justifiable and even when it is justifiable ?

Lets find out splits:
first 'it or they': the board is clearly singular; so, 'it' fits here - 'they' doesn't. So, A is out.
last 'it or they': the meaning of the sentence suggests that the antecedent here is 'leaves ' which is plural. So, B is out.
even when: after even when, we use clause; so, D is out and A is already dead.
So, A, B, D are all out.
'will be' or 'are': Using unnecessary future is awkward and distorts the meaning. So, E can be out for the tense issue. Moreover, in E, usage of passive after so adj that construction is really doubtful and seems both unnecessary and awkward.

Hi Mike
1 kudos for you.thanks for explanation

Hi mike
C) it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are
Choice C is the best answer. But isn't permitting and to be taken redundant?

Thanks in advance.

Thanks a ton mike for the awesome explanation..
Yeah, now it does make sense and its clear..

it take me 3 minute to do this question.
in A, when justifiable refers to they, which refers to policies. no sense
in B , it is justifiable make no sense. leaves should be justifiable.
in d, when justifiable refer to leaves. no sense.
in E, "will" is not used in time clause,

Hi mike!
I read the options differently. I was thinking that "it" in option B is indicating the "discussion" and discussion is something that is justifiable. Can you tell me if there is some way to avoid such mistakes.
Thanks

Mike

Option B can be justified in following way:

It is a pronoun which refers to the previous singular noun or acting noun i.e. GERUND "permitting" , which makes sense with the word justifiable thereby meaning that permitting was justifiable but board is not ready to discuss it.

I understand that first "it" refers to the board correctly.

Does this make sense?? Kindly point out error in my reasoning.

Please go through mikemcgarry 's explanation -



Hope this helps...

(A)they refuse to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when: PRONOUN ERROR / BOARD IS A COLLECTIVE NOUN AND USED AS SINGULAR SUBJECT IN MAIN CLAUSE.

(B)it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when it is: LOGICAL ANTECEDENT OF 'IT'= 'LEAVES OF ABSENCES' IS A PLURAL NOUN.

(C)it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are: BEST OF THE LOT.

(D)permitting leaves of absences is not discussed even when: NON ELLIPSE VERSION: EVEN WHEN LEAVES OF ABSENCES ARE JUSTIFIABLE. NOW, WE CAN ONLY OMIT THE REPETITIONS: ONLY THOSE WORDS THAT ARE PRESENT IN CLAUSE BEFORE. HERE, LINKING VERB 'ARE' IS NOT MENTIONED. HENCE, ELLIPSE VERSION IS INCORRECT.

(E)discussion of permitting leaves of absences is refused even when they will be: 'WILL BE': INCORRECT TENSE CONTEXTUALLY.

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.