Some business experts think that allowing employees to buy their emplo

Phew, lots going on here! Let's take these one by one:


In general, there is nothing wrong with using two possessives in a row:

• "Tim lives in his mother's basement."
• "Tim visited Tom's mother's beach house."

As I've said before, it's rarely a good idea to look at individual sentences -- or parts of individual sentences -- and label them as inherently wrong or inherently right. On the GMAT, your job is to select the BEST answer choice out of the five available options, and you'll never have to look at a single sentence in a bubble and determine whether it's "correct" or "incorrect". A more productive approach is to look for meaning differences between the various options and to decide which option works best.

For example, using "work together, making a company more prosperous" instead of "work together to make a company more prosperous" changes the meaning slightly. In choice (B), "to make a company more prosperous" modifies "work together", telling us the goal or outcome of working together.

In choices (A) and (C), however, "making..." seems to modify the entire preceding clause ("allowing employees... will give") - in that case, it seems as though the fact that "allowing employees... will give the employees a powerful incentive" is what makes the company more prosperous.

But the fact that something GIVES the employees an incentive to work together is not, by itself, what makes the company more prosperous. I don't think that makes (A) or (C) clearly wrong, but the meaning is more logical in choice (B).


Notice that there are a couple possible referents for the pronoun "they": "experts" or "employees". That doesn't make the "they" wrong, but (B) avoids that issue, giving us another vote against (C).


I'm not sure what you mean by "the antecedent of 'employer's'", but I'll attempt to address the other part of this question...

Notice that all five options refer to a single hypothetical company ("make/making a company..."). That single hypothetical company will only have ONE stock, and the experts are discussing the possible result of allowing the EMPLOYEES of that company to purchase that single stock (i.e., the one employer's stock) for set price.


I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but, for the same reasons stated for Q2, it's rarely a good idea to analyze tweaked versions of the answer choices -- just take what they're giving you for answer choices, and don't waste your time writing new ones. Using a pronoun instead of the noun might make the intended meaning less clear. Would that make the answer choice wrong? Maybe, maybe not. Again, all you have to do is pick the BEST option out of the five available options.

I hope that helps!
_________________

A) usage of which is wrong here as it's not non-essential modifier Also the Thus after which indicates its a result of the previous action for which we can't use "which" as its an essential one.

OA:B) Here we find and >>> parallelism is perfect: will give.... and will thus increase.... are parallel & Our intended meaning is also intact.

C)and >>> no parallelism
D)and >>> no parallelism
E) here working and making are parallel giving us an intent that both are simultaneous actions whereas working makes company props. (making is a result of working)

if we miss the above in case:C,D,E have Idiom error too. Incentive to+ V is correct. and incentive for is also correct but Incentive for + Noun is correct. we can't use incentive for + v-ing in this context. There are other errors too but these are fine to eliminate options.

Thanks

Some business experts think that allowing employees to buy their employer's stock for a set price, no matter how high the stock rises, will give the employees a powerful incentive to work together, making a company more prosperous, which will thus increase the return to shareholders.


Here the main issue is use of "which " is unclear.
Only making company prosperous will not increase return to shareholders but employee incentive to work together to make company prosperous will


No issue here, perfect use of grammar and tenses.


This sentence is trying to make things parallel but what is "they" doing here ?
Employee themselves will not increase the return to shareholder, thus clear meaning issue here.


Pronoun error, "it" - there is no singular noun that "it" can refer to, hence wrong.


Meaning- sentence is trying to say "allowing employees to buy their employer's stock for a set price will give the employees a powerful incentive for working together" and "allowing employees to buy their employer's stock for a set price will make company more prosperous". How is it even possible ?
the second line doesn't make any sense but working together will definitely make company more prosperous.

Hello Honorable Experts,
MartyTargetTestPrep, GMATGuruNY, ccooley, AjiteshArun, DmitryFarber, GMATNinja, generis, MentorTutoring
In this question, the correct choice is
It seems that the antecedent of THEIR (in the non-underlined part) has been used for 'employees'. So, if I replace the pronoun with noun we just get-->
Some business experts think that allowing employees to buy employees' employer's stock for a set price, no matter how high the stock rises, will give the employees a powerful incentive to work together to make a company more prosperous and will thus increase the return to shareholders.
My question:
Q1:
What's the rules to use 2 possessives at a time (side by side)?
Q2:
In A and C:
A) to work together, making a company more prosperous, which will thus
C) for working together, making a company more prosperous, and thus they
-->is it ok till the highlighted part?

Q3:
In C,
C) for working together, making a company more prosperous, and thus they
What's the problem with 'they'?
Q4:
In the non-underlined part, what's the antecedent of 'employer's'?
Also, in the non-underlined part, 'employer's' indicates 'singular' because the apostrophe has been used before 'S. So, why the employees buy just one 'employer's' stock? Does it guarantee that buying one employer's stock will give the employees a powerful incentives?

Q5:
What if we replace the bold part with THEM? Will it make sense?


Sorry for so many questions! These questions seem to be weird for so many people, but it is indeed needed.
Thanks all experts.
_________________

Some business experts think that allowing employees to buy their employer's stock for a set price, no matter how high the stock rises, will give the employees a powerful incentive to work together, making a company more prosperous, which will thus increase the return to shareholders.

A) to work together, making a company more prosperous, which will thus

B) to work together to make a company more prosperous and will thus

C) for working together, making a company more prosperous, and thus they

D) for working together to make a company more prosperous, and thus it will

E) for working together and making a company more prosperous, which will thus


If we compare first few words of answer choices,

we have a split between "to work" and "for working", 'to + verb' is used when we have to state 'an intention'.
In the sentence, an intention is stated. So, we need 'to + verb'... Eliminate C, D and E

In A, we have cause and effect construction......"allowing employees.................... will give the employees, making a company more......"
("noun + verb...., verbing" is a cause and effect construction)
here "making" is not the effect of "will give...", So,cause and effect relation is not established.............Eliminate A

Hence B is the correct answer

I have a doubt for B. When we read the sentence
"some business experts think that allowing employees to buy their employer's stock for a set price, no matter how high the stock rises,
->will give the employees....
->will thus increase the return to shareholders.

first one makes sense, but second one doesn't make sense that just by allowing employees ...will increase the return to shareholders.

Only because of this reason i selected option e.

May you just shed some light on it , i am confused.

Regards,
Kumar Gaurav

Hi Gaurav, option B says:

.....will give the employees a powerful incentive to work together to make a company more prosperous and will thus increase the return to shareholders.

So, making a company more prosperous will increase the return to shareholders.
_________________

GMATNinja MartyTargetTestPrep GMATGuruNY @VeritasPrepHaile could you please clarify why D is incorrect? There is a lot of ongoing discussion about this. "Incentive for.." in (D) sounds funny, but want to pinpoint the exact reason to eliminate this option.

OA: Some business experts think that allowing employees to buy their employer's stock will give the employees a powerful incentive to work together and will thus increase the return to shareholders.
Here, experts THINK that the subject in blue performs the two actions in green.
Conveyed meaning:
Experts think that allowing employees to buy their employer's stock will give the employees a powerful incentive.
Experts think that allowing employees to buy their employer's stock...will thus increase the return to stockholders.
Moreover -- because and serves to link the first green action to the second -- the usage of thus implies that the first green action causes the second green action.
This conveyed meaning -- that EMPLOYEES WORKING TOGETHER will lead to an increase in the return -- is logical.

D: Some business experts think that allowing employees to buy their employer's stock will give the employees a powerful incentive, and it will thus increase the return to shareholders.
Here -- because the portion in red is a separate independent clause -- experts think that the subject in blue performs only the FIRST ACTION IN GREEN, as follows:
Experts think that allowing employees to buy their employer's stock will give the employees a powerful incentive.
Since the independent clause in red is not connected to what experts THINK, the intended meaning is not conveyed.
Moreover -- because and serves to connect the first independent clause to the second -- we get:
Some business experts think, and it will thus increase the return to shareholders.
Here, the usage of thus implies that the action in blue causes the action in red.
This meaning is illogical:
What EXPERTS THINK does not cause an increase in the return to shareholders.
As noted above, the intended meaning is that EMPLOYEES WORKING TOGETHER will lead to an increase in the return.
Eliminate D.
_________________

Can somebody please explain why D is wrong? Can't "it" refer to the "allowance". Allowing is used as a noun here. Please help!

Yes, "it" could refer to "allowing" (more specifically, to "allowing employees to buy their employer's stock for a set price, no matter how high the stock rises"), but there are several other singular nouns in the sentence to which the "it" could refer. Does that make the pronoun absolutely wrong? No. As discussed in this video, pronoun ambiguity is not an absolute rule on the GMAT.

But, at best, the pronoun in D is a bit confusing. Even if we ignore the other singular nouns, the antecedent is long and messy. If we trade the pronoun in D for the proper antecedent, we get:

"Some business experts think that allowing employees to buy their employer's stock for a set price, no matter how high the stock rises, will give the employees a powerful incentive for working together to make a company more prosperous, and thus allowing employees to buy their employer's stock for a set price, no matter how high the stock rises will increase the return to shareholders."

That's a lot for the reader to process. The parallel structure in (B) expresses that same meaning in a much clearer and easier-to-follow way. So even if the pronoun in (D) isn't technically wrong, we still have a vote for (B) over (D).

Also, an incentive is something that motivates the employees TO do something else (in this case, to work together), so "incentive TO work together" (B) is better than "incentive FOR working together" (D):

• The "for" in (D) makes it sound like employers are giving the employees an incentive for the purpose of working together (or, using the definition of "incentive", employers are giving the employees something that motivates them to do something for the purpose of working together).
• (B) makes it clear that the employees are given motivation to work together. (D) on the other hand makes it sound like the employees are given motivation to do some unknown thing -- and the purpose of that unknown thing is working together.
• In other words, (D) leaves us wondering whether employees are given incentive to work together or incentive to do some unknown thing -- (B) avoids that issue, so the intended meaning is more clear.
• That's admittedly a subtle, idiomatic distinction, so I wouldn't worry too much about it. But it gives us another small vote in favor of (B) over (D).

(D) isn't terrible, but since the scales were already tipped in favor of (B), we have our winner.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hi,

I used the process of elimination to solve this question.

Step 1 : Eliminated Option A & E because they contain "Which" and "Which" is incorrectly modifying "Prosperous"
Step 2 : Eliminated Option C & D because they contain pronouns "They" and "It" and it is not clear what these pronouns are referring to and are also not required

Selected the only remaining option "B" as the answer choice.

Please let me know in case there is any flaw in the logic I have mentioned above.

Thank you !

Hello Applicant4991,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can resolve your doubts.

Your reasoning for eliminating Options A and E is flawed; "which" does not refer to "prosperous", as "prosperous" is an adjective; in the "comma + which" construction, "which" refers to the noun that precedes the comma or to the main noun of the noun phrase that precedes the comma, which in this case is "incentive".

The main error in Option A is that it places information that is vital to the meaning of the sentence - the fact that the purpose of the employees working together is to make the company more prosperous - between two commas; remember, information that is vital to the core meaning of the sentence cannot be placed between commas.

The main error in Option E is that it uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "working" and "making" in this case) to refer to the purpose of the action "give the employees a powerful incentive"; remember, the infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb") is preferred for referring to the purpose/intent of an action.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

Hello GMATNinja,

Some business experts think that allowing employees to buy their employer's stock for a set price, no matter how high the stock rises, will give the employees a powerful incentive to work together, making a company more prosperous, which will thus increase the return to shareholders.

A) to work together, making a company more prosperous, which will thus

B) to work together to make a company more prosperous and will thus

C) for working together, making a company more prosperous, and thus they

D) for working together to make a company more prosperous, and thus it will

E) for working together and making a company more prosperous, which will thus

In this question, the first split 'to work together' vs 'for working together' are both acceptable.
Furthermore, 'making a company more prosperous' means working together leads to making the company prosperous?

Please share your analysis.

Regards

Well, you could argue that it makes more sense in this context to write that there was an incentive to do something. When I see "incentive for," my expectation is that the entity receiving the incentive will follow. But I'm not entirely comfortable treating "incentive for" as a concrete error.

It's better to notice that there are a whole bunch of modifier/pronoun issues with "which," "they," and "it."

As for your second question, it depends on which sentence you're evaluating. In (C), for instance, "making" follows a full clause and a comma, which makes it sound as though it's modifying the entire previous clause. If that's the case, then I'd interpret phrase to mean that "making the company prosperous" was a consequence of giving the employees an incentive. But that's not quite right. The company doesn't magically become prosperous once the employees have an incentive.

Instead, it makes more sense to write that they're trying to give the employees an incentive to act -- in other words, to work together to make the company prosperous. This is the meaning we get in (B). Combine the more logical meaning in (B) with the fact that everything else has a problematic pronoun, and we've got a clear winner.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hi GMATNinja,

In opt (B), it says the employees work together to make 'a' company prosperous.

From what I understood, the meaning error here lies in the fact that - employees can be working together to make the client's company prosperous or maybe a partner company. How do we understand that the employee's own company is getting prosperous?

Contrast to opt(A) - to work together, making a company more prosperous, which will thus

Here since the the company getting prosperous is an observation of the experts (instead of an act from the employees), we can conclude that the company in question is a generic subject that the experts are referring to make their analysis.

I would select opt (B) if the article 'a' was changed to 'the', that would get rid of the meaning error.

Can you please explain what is it that is going wrong here? I seem to be overthinking a bit, but not sure how such issues can be tackled?

Thanks You

You're overthinking it!

First, (A), has the same problem we note in our earlier post about (C): "making" appears to modify the entire previous clause, creating an illogical meaning.

Better yet, what is the "which" in (A) modifying? "The company?" That doesn't quite work. "Allowing employees to buy their employer's stock" is what's increasing the return to shareholders, not the company itself.

Now we have two meaning errors in (A).

Can you argue that "the company" might be preferable to "a company" in (B)? It's debatable. I think either could work. But we don't have "the company" as an option, and I'd be very reluctant to treat a questionable "a" as a concrete error. If (A) has two glaring logical problems and (B) just has a debatable "a," (B) is the better option. Simple as that.

I hope that clears things up!
_________________

Can someone please explain in ,which construction such as in option A, what does which refer to? company or incentive?

In , that it refers to noun before the preceding comma. Not sure about ,which because which normally modifies the boun just before it.

A) to work together, making a company more prosperous, which will thus

Please help.