Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 23:43 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 23:43
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4   5   
User avatar
generis
User avatar
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Last visit: 18 Jun 2022
Posts: 5,272
Own Kudos:
37,385
Given Kudos: 9,464
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 5,272
Kudos: 37,385
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 19 Oct 2019, 00:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault
Show more

alicebling
Can someone please explain why a comma is needed in front of "by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault." Is it stil correct if the comma is removed?? Thank you!
Show more

Hi alicebling , GMATNinja answered your question here.

You may have missed the explanation. The question is on page 1 of this thread, here.; GMATNinja 's answer is on page 2.
User avatar
TheNightKing
User avatar
Joined: 18 Dec 2017
Last visit: 20 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,139
Own Kudos:
1,302
Given Kudos: 421
Location: United States (KS)
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Posts: 1,139
Kudos: 1,302
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 10 Nov 2019, 19:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:

Mandy passed an exam that was quite difficult. --> OK
Mandy passed a quite difficult exam. --> WRONG

Show more

EMPOWERgmatVerbal,
Hello. I am not too sure on why later usage is incorrect. Is it because the meaning changes? Or it is something else.

Thank you in advance!
User avatar
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
User avatar
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Last visit: 17 Feb 2025
Posts: 1,694
Own Kudos:
15,175
Given Kudos: 766
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,694
Kudos: 15,175
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 11 Nov 2019, 16:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TheNightKing
Quote:

Mandy passed an exam that was quite difficult. --> OK
Mandy passed a quite difficult exam. --> WRONG


EMPOWERgmatVerbal,
Hello. I am not too sure on why later usage is incorrect. Is it because the meaning changes? Or it is something else.

Thank you in advance!
Show more

Hello TheNightKing!

Thank you for your question! For this type of sentence, it makes more sense to have the verb "passed" located directly next to the object (WHAT was passed). The fact that the exam was difficult is non-important information, so by adding it later as a prepositional phrase, it's clear that the exam needs to be the focus, and its difficulty is just added information.

In the actual sentence we're dealing with, the same thing applies - it's more important to put the focus on the situation being diffused, and not on how tense it was.

I hope this helps! Make sure to tag me at EMPOWERgmatVerbal with any more questions!
avatar
neptune28
avatar
Joined: 04 Apr 2014
Last visit: 26 Sep 2023
Posts: 12
Own Kudos:
31
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 12
Kudos: 31
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 13 Dec 2019, 12:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
alicebling
Can someone please explain why a comma is needed in front of "by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault." Is it stil correct if the comma is removed?? Thank you!
Show more
A comma is definitely not needed there in choice B). Without the comma, the sentence actually flows a lot better.

The biggest problem I have is that I don't believe the comma was inserted there organically by the test-writers. It seems to me that their reasoning was more along the lines of: "Well, without a comma, that makes the correct answer look too obvious. So, let's just stick a comma in there so that we can confuse those taking the test, forcing them to see through our pedantry if they really want to get the answer right." :upsidedown
avatar
gyanamaya
avatar
Joined: 31 Mar 2018
Last visit: 08 Feb 2022
Posts: 6
Own Kudos:
3
Given Kudos: 630
Location: India
Schools: ISB '23
GMAT 1: 650 Q48 V34
Schools: ISB '23
GMAT 1: 650 Q48 V34
Posts: 6
Kudos: 3
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 28 Feb 2020, 23:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
is the use "comma" ,before "by" in the correct option B necessary?
avatar
DSBlender
avatar
Joined: 28 Jan 2020
Last visit: 14 Apr 2020
Posts: 13
Own Kudos:
13
 [1]
Given Kudos: 36
Posts: 13
Kudos: 13
 [1]
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 03 Mar 2020, 17:03
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.


A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
Wrong. The logical meaning of the sentence is that the CEO defused the tense situation by issuing a public statement. This answer choice puts the modifier "with her public statement..." after "tense," an adjective. Whenever a "with" modifier is after an adjective, it modifies the adjective, which makes the meaning illogical. This answer choice is essentially saying that the situation was tense with her statement. This doesn't make any sense.

B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
This is correct. Using the modifier "that was quite tense" to modify the situation, this answer choice correctly identifies that the situation being "quite tense" is an integral part of the sentence. "That" is an essential modifier, which means that everything in the modifier is integral to the meaning of the sentence.

C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
This is almost correct, but incorrect. The two best answer choices are B and C, but C uses an inessential modifier. ",which..." modifiers are inessential modifiers, in contract to essential modifiers (like "that"), that modify the noun "situation" with information that is NOT integral to the sentence's true meaning. Because the fact that the situation was "quite tense" adds a layer of meaning to the sentence, an essential modifier should be used.

D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
This is incorrect. The "with" modifier is unclear. Is it describing how the CEO defused the situation? Maybe, that would make sense. But it is right next to the word "situation," which adds ambiguity. Now it might seem as if the CEO diffused a situation with (that included) a public statement. Nix for ambiguity.

E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault
This is incorrect. The idiom is "stating the debacle" is incorrect. This construct can only be used with a couple words, like "believing the test to have been unfair."
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,780
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,780
 [1]
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig Updated on: 13 Dec 2021, 16:55
Originally posted by GMATNinja on 09 Mar 2020, 19:28.
Last edited by GMATNinjaTwo on 13 Dec 2021, 16:55, edited 1 time in total.
fixed link
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gyanamaya
is the use "comma" ,before "by" in the correct option B necessary?
Show more
Is it necessary? Probably not... but that's not something you really need to worry about.

What matters is that (B) is the best option out of the five in this question. There are no black and white rules dictating when you should and should not use a comma to set off a modifier.

The first part of this post might also help, and if you want a totally excessive video on GMAT SC punctuation, you can find it here.
User avatar
felipet190
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jun 2020
Last visit: 18 Aug 2021
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
1
Posts: 7
Kudos: 1
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 20 Jul 2020, 17:44
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
gyanamaya
is the use "comma" ,before "by" in the correct option B necessary?
Is it necessary? Probably not... but that's not something you really need to worry about.

What matters is that (B) is the best option out of the five in this question. There are no black and white rules dictating when you should and should not use a comma to set off a modifier.

The first part of this post might also help, and if you want a totally excessive video on GMAT SC punctuation, you can find it here.
Show more


The problem that i'm having is as follows:
Option (A) could be better because currently, it has a problem in that her public statement could be misconstrued as the tense situation.
Option (B) could be better because currently, it has a problem in that the comma before "by" is placed there for absolutely no reason.

Why is the error in option A a bigger error than the error in option B? Sure, the error in option A can lead to confusion. But the comma in option B is placed there for absolutely no reason. Omitting it would lead to a much better sentence.

If there are no black and white rules dictating when you should and should not use a comma to set off a modifier, then can I use it with absolutely 0 regard? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but as it is used in option B, it serves zero purpose.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,780
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,780
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 21 Aug 2020, 12:38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
felipet190
GMATNinja
gyanamaya
is the use "comma" ,before "by" in the correct option B necessary?
Is it necessary? Probably not... but that's not something you really need to worry about.

What matters is that (B) is the best option out of the five in this question. There are no black and white rules dictating when you should and should not use a comma to set off a modifier.

The first part of this post might also help, and if you want a totally excessive video on GMAT SC punctuation, you can find it here.


The problem that i'm having is as follows:
Option (A) could be better because currently, it has a problem in that her public statement could be misconstrued as the tense situation.
Option (B) could be better because currently, it has a problem in that the comma before "by" is placed there for absolutely no reason.

Why is the error in option A a bigger error than the error in option B? Sure, the error in option A can lead to confusion. But the comma in option B is placed there for absolutely no reason. Omitting it would lead to a much better sentence.

If there are no black and white rules dictating when you should and should not use a comma to set off a modifier, then can I use it with absolutely 0 regard? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but as it is used in option B, it serves zero purpose.
Show more
There's absolutely nothing wrong with using an extra comma for clarity. The comma in (B) helps organize this long sentence, thus helping the reader understand the meaning. This comma does not distort the meaning at all and does not lead to multiple interpretations of the meaning.

As discussed in this post, the point of grammar isn't to torture students by having them internalize a bunch of arbitrary rules; it's to help make writing as clear and logical as possible. In (B) we have a comma that is, at worst, harmless.

On the other hand, the meaning is open to interpretation in choice (A) - that's an issue of clarity and meaning and not something we can ignore. Because the meaning is more clear in (B), (B) is the winner.

The takeaway: it is always legitimate to use meaning and logic as a decision point. But if the issue in question is subjective, such as comma usage, you'd never want to rely solely on that issue to kill an option.

I hope that helps!
avatar
DexterZabula
avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2020
Last visit: 07 Feb 2021
Posts: 40
Own Kudos:
17
Given Kudos: 109
Posts: 40
Kudos: 17
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 22 Sep 2020, 06:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one thing at a time, and narrow it down to the correct choice! To start, let's take a quick scan over the options and highlight any major differences in orange and purple:

Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault

After a quick glance over the options, it appears there are a lot of differences. However, we can narrow it down to 3 main issues:

1. a situation that was quite tense / a situation, which was quite tense / a quite tense situation (Clarity & Meaning)
2. with her public statement / by publicly stating / by stating publicly / with a public statement (Clarity & Meaning)
3. that the debacle... / that Smith was not responsible... / about the debacle... / the debacle not to have been... (Wordiness)

Let's start with #1 on our list because it should eliminate 2-3 options rather quickly. We need to determine if it's better to say "a situation that was quite tense" and "a quite tense situation." This is an issue of clarity. WHAT did the CEO diffuse? A situation. To make sure that's absolutely clear, it makes more sense to keep those two things together. This becomes even more important when the word "quite" is involved:

Mandy passed an exam that was quite difficult. --> OK
Mandy passed a quite difficult exam. --> WRONG

So - let's see how each option handles this particular issue:

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle (different problem - save for later)
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault

We can eliminate options D & E because they don't use the proper construction when describing the situation. Notice how I left option C off the table? It's also incorrect, and here is why:

C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle

This is INCORRECT because the addition of "which" turns this phrase into a non-essential modifier. This sentence tells us that the phrase "which was quite tense" isn't important information to the overall meaning of the sentence. In this sentence, it IS important to know that the situation the CEO diffused was tense - otherwise why would she bother dealing with it?

We can eliminate option C because it created a non-essential phrase that then changed the overall meaning and clarity.

Now that we only have 2 options left, let's take a closer look at each one to determine which is better:

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
This is INCORRECT because the phrase "with her public statement" is problematic. By not giving clear credit to the CEO for making the statement, readers might think that the CEO diffused the situation with a public statement made by someone else, or by not actually making the statement herself. This isn't a strong enough way to say what they mean, so it's not the best choice.

B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
This is CORRECT. It's clear that the CEO made a public statement herself with the phrase "by publicly stating." It gives credit where it's due, and it's absolutely clear what the writer intended to say.

There you have it - option B is the correct choice! It's absolutely clear what is going on in the sentence, and all of the actions are tied to the correct people.


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.
Show more


Can you, please, clarify the usage of comma before "by publicly stating"?
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,489
Kudos: 2,387
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 28 Sep 2020, 13:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one thing at a time, and narrow it down to the correct choice! To start, let's take a quick scan over the options and highlight any major differences in orange and purple:

Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault

After a quick glance over the options, it appears there are a lot of differences. However, we can narrow it down to 3 main issues:

1. a situation that was quite tense / a situation, which was quite tense / a quite tense situation (Clarity & Meaning)
2. with her public statement / by publicly stating / by stating publicly / with a public statement (Clarity & Meaning)
3. that the debacle... / that Smith was not responsible... / about the debacle... / the debacle not to have been... (Wordiness)

Let's start with #1 on our list because it should eliminate 2-3 options rather quickly. We need to determine if it's better to say "a situation that was quite tense" and "a quite tense situation." This is an issue of clarity. WHAT did the CEO diffuse? A situation. To make sure that's absolutely clear, it makes more sense to keep those two things together. This becomes even more important when the word "quite" is involved:

Mandy passed an exam that was quite difficult. --> OK
Mandy passed a quite difficult exam. --> WRONG

So - let's see how each option handles this particular issue:

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle (different problem - save for later)
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault

We can eliminate options D & E because they don't use the proper construction when describing the situation. Notice how I left option C off the table? It's also incorrect, and here is why:

Show more

Quote:
Mandy passed an exam that was quite difficult. --> OK
Mandy passed a quite difficult exam. --> WRONG
Show more
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
Hi,
If I say:
Mandy ate an apple that was juicy.
Mandy ate a juicy apple.
It seems that the 2nd one is more concise :)
Am I missing anything?
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,489
Kudos: 2,387
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 28 Sep 2020, 13:19
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Q1: Is there any meaning difference in both version? I have a great curiosity to know that because my feeling says that both are same in meaning.
B) Although some had accused Smith, the firm's network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith's fault.
F) Although some had accused Smith, the firm's network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a quite tense situation, by stating publicly that the debacle was not Smith's fault.

Q2: Can We remove choice A because of the use of 'her'? We don't know the CEO is male or female either, do we? If the author use 'her' in every choice then it is NOT matter but as only option A use 'her' then it is matter, isn't it?
Need experts' reply...
User avatar
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
User avatar
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Last visit: 17 Feb 2025
Posts: 1,694
Own Kudos:
15,175
Given Kudos: 766
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,694
Kudos: 15,175
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 28 Sep 2020, 14:38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TheUltimateWinner
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one thing at a time, and narrow it down to the correct choice! To start, let's take a quick scan over the options and highlight any major differences in orange and purple:

Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault

After a quick glance over the options, it appears there are a lot of differences. However, we can narrow it down to 3 main issues:

1. a situation that was quite tense / a situation, which was quite tense / a quite tense situation (Clarity & Meaning)
2. with her public statement / by publicly stating / by stating publicly / with a public statement (Clarity & Meaning)
3. that the debacle... / that Smith was not responsible... / about the debacle... / the debacle not to have been... (Wordiness)

Let's start with #1 on our list because it should eliminate 2-3 options rather quickly. We need to determine if it's better to say "a situation that was quite tense" and "a quite tense situation." This is an issue of clarity. WHAT did the CEO diffuse? A situation. To make sure that's absolutely clear, it makes more sense to keep those two things together. This becomes even more important when the word "quite" is involved:

Mandy passed an exam that was quite difficult. --> OK
Mandy passed a quite difficult exam. --> WRONG

So - let's see how each option handles this particular issue:

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle (different problem - save for later)
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault

We can eliminate options D & E because they don't use the proper construction when describing the situation. Notice how I left option C off the table? It's also incorrect, and here is why:


Quote:
Mandy passed an exam that was quite difficult. --> OK
Mandy passed a quite difficult exam. --> WRONG
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
Hi,
If I say:
Mandy ate an apple that was juicy.
Mandy ate a juicy apple.
It seems that the 2nd one is more concise :)
Am I missing anything?
Show more

Thanks for the question TheUltimateWinner!

In simple sentence, such as the ones you posted above, you're correct to say that "Mandy ate a juicy apple" is more concise and still clear. However, when you start getting into sentences that are long, wordy, and contain many parts, sometimes being clear is more important than being concise. We think that the thinking behind this question, for whoever wrote it, is to put the focus on the situation first, and describe it second.

We hope that helps! If you'd like more clarification, we suggest asking the person who posted the question - they might have a better answer for why they wrote the question the way that they did. :) :thumbsup:
User avatar
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
User avatar
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Last visit: 17 Feb 2025
Posts: 1,694
Own Kudos:
15,175
 [1]
Given Kudos: 766
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,694
Kudos: 15,175
 [1]
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 28 Sep 2020, 14:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
DexterZabula
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one thing at a time, and narrow it down to the correct choice! To start, let's take a quick scan over the options and highlight any major differences in orange and purple:

Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault

After a quick glance over the options, it appears there are a lot of differences. However, we can narrow it down to 3 main issues:

1. a situation that was quite tense / a situation, which was quite tense / a quite tense situation (Clarity & Meaning)
2. with her public statement / by publicly stating / by stating publicly / with a public statement (Clarity & Meaning)
3. that the debacle... / that Smith was not responsible... / about the debacle... / the debacle not to have been... (Wordiness)

Let's start with #1 on our list because it should eliminate 2-3 options rather quickly. We need to determine if it's better to say "a situation that was quite tense" and "a quite tense situation." This is an issue of clarity. WHAT did the CEO diffuse? A situation. To make sure that's absolutely clear, it makes more sense to keep those two things together. This becomes even more important when the word "quite" is involved:

Mandy passed an exam that was quite difficult. --> OK
Mandy passed a quite difficult exam. --> WRONG

So - let's see how each option handles this particular issue:

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle (different problem - save for later)
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault

We can eliminate options D & E because they don't use the proper construction when describing the situation. Notice how I left option C off the table? It's also incorrect, and here is why:

C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle

This is INCORRECT because the addition of "which" turns this phrase into a non-essential modifier. This sentence tells us that the phrase "which was quite tense" isn't important information to the overall meaning of the sentence. In this sentence, it IS important to know that the situation the CEO diffused was tense - otherwise why would she bother dealing with it?

We can eliminate option C because it created a non-essential phrase that then changed the overall meaning and clarity.

Now that we only have 2 options left, let's take a closer look at each one to determine which is better:

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
This is INCORRECT because the phrase "with her public statement" is problematic. By not giving clear credit to the CEO for making the statement, readers might think that the CEO diffused the situation with a public statement made by someone else, or by not actually making the statement herself. This isn't a strong enough way to say what they mean, so it's not the best choice.

B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
This is CORRECT. It's clear that the CEO made a public statement herself with the phrase "by publicly stating." It gives credit where it's due, and it's absolutely clear what the writer intended to say.

There you have it - option B is the correct choice! It's absolutely clear what is going on in the sentence, and all of the actions are tied to the correct people.


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.


Can you, please, clarify the usage of comma before "by publicly stating"?
Show more

Good question, DexterZabula!

We don't agree that there should be a comma there either! Sometimes, GMAT questions aren't grammatically "perfect," but they are the closest we can get to perfection. In this case, option B is the best answer out of the bunch - but it's not perfect.

We also suggest perhaps asking the person who posted the question why it's there, and let us know what they have to say! :) :thumbsup:
User avatar
CEdward
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Last visit: 14 Apr 2022
Posts: 1,203
Own Kudos:
272
Given Kudos: 332
Posts: 1,203
Kudos: 272
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 10 Feb 2021, 12:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault
User avatar
CEdward
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Last visit: 14 Apr 2022
Posts: 1,203
Own Kudos:
272
Given Kudos: 332
Posts: 1,203
Kudos: 272
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 10 Feb 2021, 12:38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one thing at a time, and narrow it down to the correct choice! To start, let's take a quick scan over the options and highlight any major differences in orange and purple:

Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of negligence when the crucial data went missing, the CEO defused a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault.

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault

After a quick glance over the options, it appears there are a lot of differences. However, we can narrow it down to 3 main issues:

1. a situation that was quite tense / a situation, which was quite tense / a quite tense situation (Clarity & Meaning)
2. with her public statement / by publicly stating / by stating publicly / with a public statement (Clarity & Meaning)
3. that the debacle... / that Smith was not responsible... / about the debacle... / the debacle not to have been... (Wordiness)

Let's start with #1 on our list because it should eliminate 2-3 options rather quickly. We need to determine if it's better to say "a situation that was quite tense" and "a quite tense situation." This is an issue of clarity. WHAT did the CEO diffuse? A situation. To make sure that's absolutely clear, it makes more sense to keep those two things together. This becomes even more important when the word "quite" is involved:

Mandy passed an exam that was quite difficult. --> OK
Mandy passed a quite difficult exam. --> WRONG

So - let's see how each option handles this particular issue:

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle (different problem - save for later)
D. a quite tense situation with a public statement about the debacle not being Smith’s fault
E. a quite tense situation by publicly stating the debacle not to have been Smith’s fault

We can eliminate options D & E because they don't use the proper construction when describing the situation. Notice how I left option C off the table? It's also incorrect, and here is why:

C. a situation, which was quite tense, by stating publicly that Smith was not responsible for the debacle

This is INCORRECT because the addition of "which" turns this phrase into a non-essential modifier. This sentence tells us that the phrase "which was quite tense" isn't important information to the overall meaning of the sentence. In this sentence, it IS important to know that the situation the CEO diffused was tense - otherwise why would she bother dealing with it?

We can eliminate option C because it created a non-essential phrase that then changed the overall meaning and clarity.

Now that we only have 2 options left, let's take a closer look at each one to determine which is better:

A. a situation that was quite tense with her public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
This is INCORRECT because the phrase "with her public statement" is problematic. By not giving clear credit to the CEO for making the statement, readers might think that the CEO diffused the situation with a public statement made by someone else, or by not actually making the statement herself. This isn't a strong enough way to say what they mean, so it's not the best choice.

B. a situation that was quite tense, by publicly stating that the debacle was not Smith’s fault
This is CORRECT. It's clear that the CEO made a public statement herself with the phrase "by publicly stating." It gives credit where it's due, and it's absolutely clear what the writer intended to say.

There you have it - option B is the correct choice! It's absolutely clear what is going on in the sentence, and all of the actions are tied to the correct people.


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.
Show more

Sorry, can you explain A? I don't quite understand this notion of giving/not giving credit to the CEO? How does the preposition 'with' even do that to begin with? I was never aware of such usage.
User avatar
chayma
User avatar
Joined: 23 Oct 2020
Last visit: 23 Aug 2021
Posts: 14
Given Kudos: 85
Posts: 14
Kudos: 0
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 16 Mar 2021, 22:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Mandy passed an exam that was quite difficult. --> OK
Mandy passed a quite difficult exam. --> WRONG

I don’t understand why this is wrong

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [3]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [3]
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 17 Mar 2021, 00:54
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
chayma
Mandy passed an exam that was quite difficult. --> OK
Mandy passed a quite difficult exam. --> WRONG

I don’t understand why this is wrong
Show more
Hi chayma,

This is one of those somewhat frustrating issues in English (such issues are, of course, not limited to English). The word quite simply cannot take that position in that structure. This is something that we'll have to remember.

a + quite + [adj] + [noun] ← This is not correct. We need to move that quite.

1. a quite tough question ← This is not correct.

2. a question that was/is quite tough ← This is fine.
3. quite a tough question ← This is fine.
avatar
Adambhau
avatar
Joined: 07 Feb 2020
Last visit: 06 Nov 2024
Posts: 90
Own Kudos:
84
Given Kudos: 266
Location: Germany
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GMAT 1: 560 Q48 V20
GMAT 1: 560 Q48 V20
Posts: 90
Kudos: 84
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 13 May 2021, 03:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
dcummins
I was very much thrown off by the comma in (B). Any advice on this would be appreciated.

I also failed to detect the error with "with" in (A), but after reading a few responses i realise i'm using my ear too much here.

"she defused a situation... with her (public statement)" is different from "she defused a situation, by publicly stating"

Public statement = the means by which she defused; publicly stating is essentially how she did it - what we want.
Generally, I'd try to avoid using a comma as a decision point -- the GMAT really isn't that interested in testing you on the presence or absence of commas. (More on punctuation in this video.) And in this case, the comma is just setting off a modifier, and that's a fairly typical usage.

Prepositions such as "with" are flexible modifiers - they can describe nouns or actions, depending on context. For example, if I order a hamburger with cheese, I'm not using the cheese to order the burger, but rather, "with cheese" is offering additional information about the burger I've ordered. Put another way, "with" is modifying the noun "hamburger," rather than the verb "order."

But if I perform a task with great enthusiasm, "with great enthusiasm" describes how I'm performing the task, rather than the task itself. In this case, "with" is modifying an action.

The biggest problem with (D) is that it can be hard to see which scenario applies. "With" could be a noun modifier or a verb modifier.

Take another look: "the CEO defused a quite tense situation with a public statement." It really isn't clear whether "with a public statement" is functioning as verb modifier explaining how the CEO defused the situation, or functioning as a noun modifier describing the situation itself.

In other words, a "defused a quite tense situation with a public statement," could be one in which a disastrous public statement was the very situation the CEO defused, or it could be the case that the CEO defused a situation by issuing a public statement. The possibility of two interpretations makes (D) more confusing than (B), in which it's crystal-clear that the public statement was how the CEO defused the situation. Clarity beats ambiguity every time, so (B) is a better option.

I hope that helps!
Show more

GMATNinja
Great Explanation! Thanks!

one more question, if the Option A is written like this after removing "her" and adding comma :

A. a situation that was quite tense, with public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault

According to your explananation, still B would be more clear than A. Right?
Because with is still ambigous that it is noun modifier or verb modifier.
Thanks! :)
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,780
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,780
Although some had accused Smith, the firm’s network manager, of neglig 21 May 2021, 13:01
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Adambhau
GMATNinja
dcummins
I was very much thrown off by the comma in (B). Any advice on this would be appreciated.

I also failed to detect the error with "with" in (A), but after reading a few responses i realise i'm using my ear too much here.

"she defused a situation... with her (public statement)" is different from "she defused a situation, by publicly stating"

Public statement = the means by which she defused; publicly stating is essentially how she did it - what we want.
Generally, I'd try to avoid using a comma as a decision point -- the GMAT really isn't that interested in testing you on the presence or absence of commas. (More on punctuation in this video.) And in this case, the comma is just setting off a modifier, and that's a fairly typical usage.

Prepositions such as "with" are flexible modifiers - they can describe nouns or actions, depending on context. For example, if I order a hamburger with cheese, I'm not using the cheese to order the burger, but rather, "with cheese" is offering additional information about the burger I've ordered. Put another way, "with" is modifying the noun "hamburger," rather than the verb "order."

But if I perform a task with great enthusiasm, "with great enthusiasm" describes how I'm performing the task, rather than the task itself. In this case, "with" is modifying an action.

The biggest problem with (D) is that it can be hard to see which scenario applies. "With" could be a noun modifier or a verb modifier.

Take another look: "the CEO defused a quite tense situation with a public statement." It really isn't clear whether "with a public statement" is functioning as verb modifier explaining how the CEO defused the situation, or functioning as a noun modifier describing the situation itself.

In other words, a "defused a quite tense situation with a public statement," could be one in which a disastrous public statement was the very situation the CEO defused, or it could be the case that the CEO defused a situation by issuing a public statement. The possibility of two interpretations makes (D) more confusing than (B), in which it's crystal-clear that the public statement was how the CEO defused the situation. Clarity beats ambiguity every time, so (B) is a better option.

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja
Great Explanation! Thanks!

one more question, if the Option A is written like this after removing "her" and adding comma :

A. a situation that was quite tense, with public statement that the debacle was not Smith’s fault

According to your explananation, still B would be more clear than A. Right?
Because with is still ambigous that it is noun modifier or verb modifier.
Thanks! :)
Show more
Interesting question. And while I'd generally caution against creating hypothetical to evaluate rather than simply analyzing what we're given, I think it's worth discussing.

First, the presence of comma might change the way we think about the modifier. After all, "I saw the man running," and "I saw the man, running," appear to have two different meanings: in the first sentence "running" is a noun modifier describing the "man," and in the second, it's modifying the entire previous clause, informing the reader what "I" was doing when I saw the man.

However, if I wrote, "the man, running for his life, tripped over a pineapple rind," the "-ing" modifier is again describing the noun. In other words, even when we have "comma + modifier," the modifier in question could still modify a noun or a clause, depending on context.

So I'd say you're right. There's still enough ambiguity in (A) that we'd prefer (B) for the same reasons we preferred (B) initially.

I hope that helps!
   1   2   3   4   5   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts