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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Join IIMU Director to gain an understanding of DEM program, its curriculum & about the career prospects through a Q&A chat session. Dec 11th at 8 PM IST and 6:30 PST
Enter The Economist GMAT Tutor’s Brightest Minds competition – it’s completely free! All you have to do is take our online GMAT simulation test and put your mind to the test. Are you ready? This competition closes on December 13th.
Attend a Veritas Prep GMAT Class for Free. With free trial classes you can work with a 99th percentile expert free of charge. Learn valuable strategies and find your new favorite instructor; click for a list of upcoming dates and teachers.
Does GMAT RC seem like an uphill battle? e-GMAT is conducting a free webinar to help you learn reading strategies that can enable you to solve 700+ level RC questions with at least 90% accuracy in less than 10 days.
Asset allocators, whether individuals or professional services, in effect create an all-weather portfolio, often in the form of mutual funds, intended to turn in good results in both bull and bear markets. The purpose is to offset declines in the value of one segment with advances in another.
Re: Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds,
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 18 Nov 2010, 09:05
11
9
Asset allocators create portfolios, o[strike]ften in the form of mutual funds,[/strike]with the intention to turn in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets.
To make things clear, let us score out the parenthetical appositive - often in the form of mutual funds – and it will then be clear whether - the intention - modifies portfolios or the allocators. It is indeed modifying the portfolios.
(A) With the intention - with the intention to - is wrong idiom. - Intention of - is the right idiom. (B) The intention of which is - the intention of which is modifying rightly the portfolios (otherwise why will it say - of which) but the expression is wordy (C) intended to - perfectly and crisply uses the participle intended to modify the portfolios. (D) And intending - and intending is a fragment (E) So intended as - so intended as to – ugly and unidiomatic C - The clear and crisp choice
_________________
Are you stuck around 630? If you can't pole-vault above 630, spare 30 hours and you can fly on top. "Winners never quit and quitters never win". (+919884544509)
Re: Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds,
[#permalink]
Show Tags
18 May 2009, 05:31
1
IMO B
Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds, with the intention to turn in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets. (A) with the intention --> with + Noun + to ... is unidiomatic. with + noun phrase or with + noun + that clause are better (B) the intention of which is -->the best: which correctly modifies for mutual funds, the intention of which is grammatically correct (C) intended --> intended is wrongly implied in passive for asset allocators (D) and intending --> ungrammatical parallelism (E) so intended as -->unidiomatic
Re: Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds,
[#permalink]
Show Tags
18 May 2009, 07:21
Minheequang wrote:
IMO B
Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds, with the intention to turn in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets. (A) with the intention --> with + Noun + to ... is unidiomatic. with + noun phrase or with + noun + that clause are better (B) the intention of which is -->the best: which correctly modifies for mutual funds, the intention of which is grammatically correct (C) intended --> intended is wrongly implied in passive for asset allocators (D) and intending --> ungrammatical parallelism (E) so intended as -->unidiomatic
I think the underlined section should modify "portfolios" - the author would use other ways if he wished to modify "mutual funds". Now, "intended" in C, a past participle, nicely modifies "portfolios".
Re: Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds,
[#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Nov 2010, 20:39
4
Hi daagh, thanks for explanations.
I would like to point out few examples of correct usage of the idiom "intention". The source is Oxford Dictionary:
intention / noun [C,U] ~ (of doing sth) | ~ (to do sth) | ~ (that...) what you intend or plan to do; your aim: I have no intention of going to the wedding. * He has announced his intention to retire. * It was not my intention that she should suffer. * He left England with the intention of travelling in Africa. * I have every intention of paying her back what I owe her. * The original intention was to devote three months to the project. * She's full of good intentions but they rarely work out. * I did it with the best (of) intentions (= meaning to help), but I only succeeded in annoying them.
So I would disagree that the idiom "intention to" is wrong. I think you wanted to say that the way it is used in A is wrong. For example if it were "Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds, with the intention of turning in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets." it would be perfectly fine as for me.
Re: Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds,
[#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Nov 2010, 21:55
Pkit You are perfectly right. In the given context - intention to turn in -does not fit in> Pairwise it may be acceptable as you have clearly made out
_________________
Are you stuck around 630? If you can't pole-vault above 630, spare 30 hours and you can fly on top. "Winners never quit and quitters never win". (+919884544509)
Re: Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds,
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Apr 2011, 01:37
1
1
C is better than A because
"Intended" ... verb form... correctly modifies the verb "create".... whereas "with the intension" is wordy, and "intension" in the noun form. According to Manhattan advance sentence correction section convert nouns to verbs to make sentence precise and short
Re: Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds,
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Apr 2011, 01:41
1
According to me, there are two problems with A. The major one is that A is changing the implied meaning of the sentence. What is intended to give good results? Portfolios, or asset allocators? Answer is portfolios. A implies that the allocators themselves, not the portfolios, will turn in good results. That doesn't make sense. Another problem is the idiom- intention of turning in is better than intention to turn in, idiom-wise.
Re: Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds,
[#permalink]
Show Tags
30 May 2011, 16:09
1
seofah wrote:
Minheequang wrote:
IMO B Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds, with the intention to turn in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets. (A) with the intention --> with + Noun + to ... is unidiomatic. with + noun phrase or with + noun + that clause are better (B) the intention of which is -->the best: which correctly modifies for mutual funds, the intention of which is grammatically correct (C) intended --> intended is wrongly implied in passive for asset allocators (D) and intending --> ungrammatical parallelism (E) so intended as -->unidiomatic
I think the underlined section should modify "portfolios" - the author would use other ways if he wished to modify "mutual funds". Now, "intended" in C, a past participle, nicely modifies "portfolios".
Please suggest why option C is better than option A other than the idiom reason
Thanks
With the intention of is far more common than with the intention to, but if we have to use something else, we could go with a meaning call.
1. Option A isn't very clear: it could mean either that portfolios have an intention to turn in good results or that asset allocators have an intention to turn in good results. We now have to ask ourselves whether (a) the allocators want to turn in good results or (b) portfolios are meant to turn in good results. For example:
The engineers created a software package with the intention to help the company's clients track resource utilization.
It's better to associate the desired result with the software package (what is the purpose of the software package?) rather than the engineers who created that package. Otherwise, we are left with just "a software package" in general. And who knows, maybe the engineers were just doing their jobs, and weren't thinking about the company's clients at all while making the program.
The engineers created a software package intended to help the company's clients track resource utilization.
2. A portfolio is just a bunch of financial assets. Some portfolios will give us good returns in both types of markets, but others won't. Therefore, it's probably better in this case to talk about asset allocators in general than to talk about portfolios in general.
With the intention... Asset allocators create portfolios. vs. Asset allocators create portfolios intended to...
3. Intended is the better way to express this idea. To understand this, let's reword the modifier in C so that the usage of intended is clear:
Asset allocators create portfoliosthatare intended to turn in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets.
This is very different from saying that something intended (verb) to do something. The intended to we see in this case is a participle. It means that portfolios are designed to achieve something, not that they have an "intention" to achieve something.
Option C is therefore better from a meaning perspective and is also shorter than the first option.
_________________
Re: Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds,
[#permalink]
Show Tags
31 Mar 2019, 09:34
I am not clear as to whether the intention is that of the asset allocators' or the portfolio's? I chose A, believing that it was the asset allocators' intention
Asset allocators, whether individuals or professional services, in effect create an all-weather portfolio, often in the form of mutual funds, intended to turn in good results in both bull and bear markets. The purpose is to offset declines in the value of one segment with advances in another.
I posted for this question one time, but I have not addressed the main points. so, I want to post again.
funds are intended to turn in (get) good result. this sentence is logic. here, the the funds will do "turn in" in the future or in hypothetical action.
but "intention of the funds" is not logic. only persons or animal with some conciousness can have "intention". this is terrible meaning error. choice b is gone.
look at choice a.
"with intention " can refer logically to "allocators". this is good. in the pattern " with intention to do/ with intention of doing", the agent performing to do/doing is the noun before "with". so, inhere allocators will perform "to turn in".
similarly, we can write "my intention to learn gmat is correct". in this pattern, we do not use "with" but "my" and the agent of "to do", a hypothetical future action is made clear.
we do not need to show the agent of hypothetical future action presented by "to do/doing" as in "intention to learn gmat is good". in this sentence, any one can be the agent of "to learn".
come back to choice a of our problem.
"to turn in..." refers to "allocators". this mean "allocators will turn in good results in bull and bear market". this make no sense. the fund not allocators should turn in good results . choice a is wrong
so, we do not care about idiom "intention to do" or "intention of doing" (both of which are in dictionary and we can not confirm which on is correct) . we know that choice a is not logic.
both choices a and b suffer logic error. if we know the idiom "intended to do" normally attached to a noun, we have a higher chance of realizing the meaning errors in choice a and b.
only now, i can realize the meaning error in choice a and b. before , I did not .
if you like my post, give me a kudos
Originally posted by thangvietnam on 06 Apr 2019, 01:54.
Last edited by GMATNinjaTwo on 26 Apr 2019, 10:10, edited 1 time in total.
Please suggest why option C is better than option A other than the idiom reason
Thanks
With the intention of is far more common than with the intention to, but if we have to use something else, we could go with a meaning call.
1. Option A isn't very clear: it could mean either that portfolios have an intention to turn in good results or that asset allocators have an intention to turn in good results. We now have to ask ourselves whether (a) the allocators want to turn in good results or (b) portfolios are meant to turn in good results. For example:
The engineers created a software package with the intention to help the company's clients track resource utilization.
It's better to associate the desired result with the software package (what is the purpose of the software package?) rather than the engineers who created that package. Otherwise, we are left with just "a software package" in general. And who knows, maybe the engineers were just doing their jobs, and weren't thinking about the company's clients at all while making the program.
The engineers created a software package intended to help the company's clients track resource utilization.
2. A portfolio is just a bunch of financial assets. Some portfolios will give us good returns in both types of markets, but others won't. Therefore, it's probably better in this case to talk about asset allocators in general than to talk about portfolios in general.
With the intention... Asset allocators create portfolios. vs. Asset allocators create portfolios intended to...
3. Intended is the better way to express this idea. To understand this, let's reword the modifier in C so that the usage of intended is clear:
Asset allocators create portfoliosthatare intended to turn in good results in both “bull” and “bear” markets.
This is very different from saying that something intended (verb) to do something. The intended to we see in this case is a participle. It means that portfolios are designed to achieve something, not that they have an "intention" to achieve something.
Option C is therefore better from a meaning perspective and is also shorter than the first option.
great explanation. thank you. this is deep and basic point we should know before we are in the test room
Re: Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of mutual funds,
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Aug 2019, 00:06
I think its extremely important to realise that the portfolios are the things that will turn good results in both bear and bull markets, not the asset allocators (people) themselves; thus, "intended", not "with the intention" is correct because it correctly makes the portfolios the vehicle for turning good results.
Re: Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of
[#permalink]
Show Tags
24 Oct 2019, 05:44
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.
gmatclubot
Re: Asset allocators create portfolios, often in the form of
[#permalink]
24 Oct 2019, 05:44
close
51% (00:54) correct 
