The normative model of strategic decision-making suggests that

I also have a question on this form. My understanding is that if you use the "and," form, the clause after the "and," must have a verb and subject. OA D seems to violate. Can anyone shed some light on this apparent contradiction?

I have highlighted your query - that structure is valid.
subject = executives
verb = examine, decide
and = conjunction

The normative model of strategic decision-making suggests that executives examine a firm’s external environment and internal
D. conditions and, [strike]using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses[/strike], decide

If you loose the non essentials in a sentence the meaning will not change. So I strike what is non essential i.e. between the commas. Now the meaning is executives examine and decide.
examine || decide. Hope that helps !

Pardon me for using bright colors

IMO, this example is a kind of command subjunctive, wherein, the word suggests means almost to advise or give some kind of imperativeness as may be in a tuition or exercise class; Depending upon where it comes from, suggestion can be a mandate, such as when the Supreme Court or the Fed suggests something, it is rather an order than a request. Looked from that angle, the verb is not used as in an indicative mood, but in a subjunctive mood. So, in the use of subjunctive mood, verbs like can decide become irrelevant and incongruous. So we can see, why option D with the verb decide which is parallel to examine is the apt expression

IMO it should be D.

...that executives examine A, and, modifier, decide B.

The modifier explains how decision B is made.

The normative model of strategic decision-making suggests that executives examine a firm’s external environment and internal conditions, and in using the set of objective
criteria they derive from these analyses, can decide on a strategy.

Lets break the sentence into its clauses and phrases:
Clause-1 : The normative model of strategic decision-making suggests - Normative Model is the subject and suggests is the verb
Clause-2 : that executives examine a firm’s external environment and internal conditions - Executives is subject and examine is verb
Clause-3 : ,and
Phrase : - in using the set of objective criteria
Continuation of clause-3: they derive from these analyses,[color=#ed1c24] can decide on a strategy. - They is subject and derive is verb. Can decide on a strategy is placed awkwardly and has no subject. So this sentence has modifier and S_V error[/color]

A. conditions, and in using the set of objective criteria they derive from these analyses, can decide - Wrong as explained above
B. conditions, and they use the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses in deciding - Parallelism issue- Executive examine should be || Executives decide
C. conditions and, in using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses, deciding - Deciding is not || to examine
D. conditions and, using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses, decide correct choice- parallel.
E. conditions and, in their use of the set of objective criteria they derive from these analyses, they decide - No comma + and to connect two clauses

SUBJUNCTIVE USAGE

The normative model of strategic decision-making suggests that executives examine a firm’s external environment and internal conditions and, using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses, decide on a strategy.

Correct answer must be (D) for the highlighted errors in the other options...

The normative model of strategic decision-making suggests that executives examine a firm’s external environment and internal conditions, and in using the set of objective criteria they derive from these analyses, can decide on a strategy.

Issues: Parallelism | Verb form

Analysis:
1. The core of the sentence: ".. model ... suggests that executives examine.. and decide ... "
- to maintain parallelism, we need to make sure that the entities separated by "and" are parallel i.e. clauses with same verb form (in this case).


A. conditions, and in using the set of objective criteria they derive from these analyses, can decide
- this option tries to draw parallel between "examine... " and "in using..." - NOT parallel
- also, "can decide..." is not properly connected to any of the clauses - fragment issue

B. conditions, and they use the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses in deciding
- this option tries to draw parallel between "examine... " and "they use..." - NOT parallel

C. conditions and, in using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses, deciding
- "in using..." is fragment that does not properly modify the clause following it.
- this option tries to draw parallel between "examine... " and "deciding......" - NOT parallel

D. conditions and, using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses, decide

E. conditions and, in their use of the set of objective criteria they derive from these analyses, they decide
- this option tries to draw parallel between "examine... " and "they decide......" - NOT parallel[/color]

NOTE: I referenced OG and it does not focus on parallelism at all. It points out the redundant use of "they" to refer executives (in the same sentence) as being wordy. Based on this criteria (A), (B) and (E) can be eliminated. (C) can be eliminated because the structure in the sentence leaves second clause without a subject.

Answer: D.

Just checking if we have anything to check for position of "And" . Before comma or after comma?
While answering this question I had in my mind that and should come after comma .

Yes, comma before 'and' or after 'and' does matter here.

Let me explain you using option A and D.

Te rule says, if we remove the phrase between two commas, the remaining sentence must make sense.

Now, do it over A.
A. conditions, and in using the set of objective criteria they derive from these analyses, can decide --> Reread the original sentence using conditions can decide. You will find that the sentence has become a run on sentence. Hence, A is incorrect.

D. conditions and, using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses, decide --> Now do the same with this. You will find D does make sense here. Hence, correct answer.

4. The normative model of strategic decision-making suggests that executives examine a firm’s external environment and internal conditions, and in using the set of objective criteria they derive from these analyses, can decide on a strategy.

A. conditions, and in using the set of objective criteria they derive from these analyses, can decide
B. conditions and they use the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses in deciding
C. conditions and, in using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses, deciding
D. conditions and, using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses, decide
E. conditions and, in their use of the set of objective criteria they derive from these analyses, they decide

This is a deeply meaning -based question. That the executives decide is the crux of the matter. Therefore, we need to use a verb for the decision making part namely 'decide' rather than the participial 'deciding'

Get rid of B and C instantly.
Get rid of A for saying can decide, which denotes a capability rather than an occurrence. E is wrong for using a misleading idiom 'in using' as though they decide while using, during using, whereas the intent is to use the criteria to help decide the strategy.


This is an out and out a meaning based question in which the answer is beyond the utility of grammar alone.

The normative model of strategic decision-making suggests that executives examine a firm’s external environment and internal conditions, and in using the set of objective criteria they derive from these analyses can decide on a strategy.


The first thing is that the standard theory of decision making postulates that the executives make SWOT analysis of the circumstances and the based on the outcome of this brainstorm devise a suitable strategy to tackle the issue at hand. The tenor of the theory is to command the participants to a set path. To this extent, this is a command subjunctive as the first verb has been marked in the bare infinitive "examine". Therefore, the second verb also is required to be in the bare infinitive namely 'decide'. Here one cannot take 'use' as parallel to examine as the analyses are themselves an outcome of the brainstorm. nor could 'derive' be parallel to examine since the verb 'derive' belongs to the relative clause ( that) they derive Thereof now,


A. conditions, and in using the set of objective criteria they derive from these analyses, can decide -- can decide is wrong. We don't use can in the command subjunctive

B. conditions, and they use the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses in deciding --use is required to be parallel verb to examine

C. conditions and, in using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses, deciding --- The second part is an outright fragment

D. conditions and, using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses, decide --- the best

E. conditions and, in their use of the set of objective criteria they derive from these analyses, they decide --- in the executives' use of the set of objective criteria the executives derive from these analyses, the executives decide on a strategy -- awkward with too many pronouns nested within a clause
.

mikemcgarry: Dear Mike, can you please throw in some expertise why option B is wrong. I understand that option D is correct, and it is an easy pick. But, I am not able to find a strong reason to eliminate B. I knocked it off because it uses the phrase "use X in deciding Y", which means that X plays an indirect part in the process of Y AND if you use the phrase" use X to decide y", which means that X plays a direct role to decide about Y.

2. Another problem with B is that it makes the 2 clauses independent, while the two clauses have a connection between them. (clearly evident in D)

Are these reasons correct? Can you let me know please? Thanks always

Dear bkpolymers1617,

I'm happy to respond.

Choice (B) is grammatically and idiomatically correct, but it is not the best answer. The phrase "use X in deciding" and "use X to decide" are virtually identical in meaning: I disagree with your analysis of that difference.

Choice (B) is not the best answer because it's rhetorically inferior. It's clunky. The two independent clauses are grammatically correct, but why have two clauses with the extra pronoun subject? Choice (D) presents a much more elegant construction.

Does this make sense?
Mike

Hi mikemcgarry

Could you please explain me the modifier in choice D? conditions and, using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses, decide

Why can we say with certainty that it modifies executives? In this case, the ING modifier is not showing a result of a previous clause and is not touching executives (as when we say something like: "using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses, executives blah blah blah").

Regards,
Cristián

Hello Cristián CristianJuarez,


I will be glad to help you out with this this one.


The modifier using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses actually modifies the action decide that appears after this modifier.

How do the executives decide on a strategy? They do so by using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses.

The modifier using the set... also makes sense with the doer of the modified action decide - executives.


The context and the structure of the sentence are such that the meaning conveyed by Choice D is clear.



Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Dear CristianJuarez,

I'm happy to respond. I see that Shraddha already responded. I will add a few more thoughts.

First of all, it's good to learn the proper names. What you are calling an "ING modifier" is called a participle. Precision in language supports precision in thought.

Participles are unique in that they can function either as a noun modifier or as a verb/clause modifier. Only noun-modifiers obey the Touch Rule: with a few well-defined exceptions, noun modifiers must "touch" the noun they modifier. The Touch Rule governs noun modifiers only: it is entirely irrelevant to verb modifiers. Verb modifiers are much more free in their placement, as long as there's no ambiguity.

Noun modifier are adjectival phrases & clauses, answering "adjective questions": which one? what kind?

Verb modifiers are adverbial phrases and clauses, answering "adverb questions": when? where? how? in what way?

In this sentence, the participial phrase "using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses" answers a "how?" question, so it's an adverbial phrase, a verb modifier.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi VeritasKarishma and GMATNinja
Could you please explain how in option D "using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses, decide" is not modifying the verb, but modifying the subject("executives) in an unsaid way?