Because of the enormous research and development expenditures required

The last part of the sentence uses "such firms" which will need an antecedent in the earlier sentence.

So A,C, D are out.

"firms' survival" is possesive and "such firms" can't refer back to it.

Thus B

Dear Fame,
The correct idiom for the active use of the verb is -----require + [noun] + [infinitive] ----
ACTIVE FORM: Firms require enormous research and development expenditures to survive.
This sentence is NOT using the verb "to require" in its active form. Instead, it is using the past participle form, "required", as a participle modifying the noun phrase "enormous research and development expenditures." The rules for the past participle follow the rules for the passive use of the verb. For many verb, the subject in the active form would become the object of the preposition "by" in the passive form ----
I read the book. ----> The book was read by me.
Idiomatically, the preposition "by" sounds unnatural with the passive verb "required" in this particular construction. Because the former subject, here "firms", is now essentially the subject of an infinitive phrase, it must take the preposition "for" --- the preposition "for" is the preposition we use to denote the subject of an infinitive or infinitive phrase.
I want for the teacher to help you.
For a homerun hitter to hit over .300 is a notable achievement.
The lawyer argued that it was not a crime for a policemen to use deadly force in an ambiguous situation.
When we change the active form above to passive form, the former direct object, "enormous research and development expenditures" becomes the subject (that always happens in a change from active to passive), and because we still have an infinitive phrase, the former subject, "firms", becomes the object of the preposition "for", becoming the subject of that infinitive phrase:
ACTIVE FORM: Firms require enormous research and development expenditures to survive.
PASSIVE FORM: Enormous research and development expenditures are required for firms to survive.
Now, we are ready to consider the sentence in this question. The past participle, "required", follows the rules & structures of the passive form of the verb "are required."
Because of the enormous research and development expenditures required for firms to survive in the electronics industry, an industry marked by rapid innovation and volatile demand, such firms tend to be very large.
That's (B), the OA version of the sentence.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Because of the enormous research and development expenditures required to survive in the electronics industry, an industry marked by rapid innovation and volatile demand, such firms tend to be very large.

an industry marked by rapid innovation and volatile demand is a summative/resumptive modifier. we can pretty much ignore it since it does not add to the meaning of this stem.

therefore we only have this to consider:
Because of the enormous research and development expenditures required to survive in the electronics industry, such firms tend to be very large.

Normally this would be correct: (note the omission of SUCH)
Because of the enormous research and development expenditures required to survive in the electronics industry, firms tend to be very large.

however, SUCH signifies to the reader that it is referring back to firms, which is not mentioned in the dependent clause.
Because of the enormous research and development expenditures required to survive in the electronics industry, such firms tend to be very large.

therefore, we need to mention firms in the dependent clause.
Because of the enormous research and development expenditures required of firms to survive in the electronics industry, such firms tend to be very large.

Dear gmatpart2,

This is a tricky point of idiom. Both "require for" and "require of" are correct idioms. The preposition "for" is used when we are discussing an object/tool/implement/ability, something needed to accomplish a task. The object of "for" is the task.
= He requires a calculator for any computations beyond single digit.
= MLB players require excellent vision for hitting pitches.
The preposition "of" is used when we are discussing individuals upon whom demands are placed.
= I require daily studying of my students.
= The Treaty of Versailles (1919) required of Germany the most draconian conditions.
Here, both idioms are relevant.
Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________

B.

"Such firms" needs a reference, so eliminate a, c, d, e.
E. is eliminated because it does not introduce "firms" as an object.


Such as when we say "Jane's kite is red, although she loves it." the only object "she" can point to is Kite, not Jane.

B

The last part of the sentence says "such firms." This means the concept of firms must be introduced in the first clause. That leaves B and E. E is wrong because the introduction cannot be a possessive.

The mention of 'such firms' later in the sentence tells us that there must be a reference to the firms earlier on in the sentence. For this reason, A, C, and D are out.

Between B and E, B wins because it clearly mentions the firms for 'such firms' to refer back to this later on. In E, only the firms' survival is mentioned - not the firms themselves - so 'such firms' has no precedent to refer back to.

Clearly B.

BUT OG says required of X to do Y is INCORRECT ...

Legislation in the Canadian province of Ontario requires of both public and private employers that pay be the same for jobs historically held by women as for jobs requiring comparable skill that are usually held by men.
(A) that pay be the same for jobs historically held by women as for jobs requiring comparable skill that are
(B) that pay for jobs historically held by women should be the same as for a job requiring comparable skills
(C) to pay the same in jobs historically held by women as in jobs of comparable skill that are
(D) to pay the same regardless of whether a job was historically held by women or is one demanding comparable skills（A）
(E) to pay as much for jobs historically held by women as for a job demanding comparable skills

Choice A is best. In choice B, should is illogical after requires, or at least unnecessary, and so is better omitted;in choices B and E, job does not agree in number with jobs; and in choices B, D, and E, the wording illogically describes the comparable skills rather than the jobs as being "usually held by men." Choices C, D, and E produce the ungrammatical construction requires of... employers to pay, in which of makes the phrase incorrect. In C, the use of in rather than for is unidiomatic, and jobs of comparable skill confusedly suggests that the jobs rather than the workers possess the skills. In D, the phrase beginning regardless ... is awkward and wordy in addition to being illogical.

Well, not quite. In the example you have highlighted, the OG says 'requires of X to Y' is incorrect (i.e. 'present form of the verb + of X to Y' is incorrect), not 'of X to do Y'.

While the construction 'required of firms to survive' is indeed awkward, it is the best option among the given choices. Also, using the past tense form of the verb is not grammatically incorrect. 'required of firms to survive', though awkward, is correct. On the other hand 'requires of employers to pay' is incorrect and can be replaced by the simpler 'requires employers to pay'.

The subject of the last clause "Such firms tend to be very large", should be acted upon by the starting line "Because of the enormous research and development expenditures required".
But in the sentence, it is not so. The "firms" are not being acted upon. So, to correct it, you need to go for option B. That is the only choice where it makes correct sense.

As far as i know, the correct idiom structure is "require + noun + to", but still i am not able to understand how option B is correct answer.

Hi Mike,
Thanks for such a detailed explanation.

However, the correct answer B says "of firms to survive" rather than "for firms to survive". Please let me know if its just a typo.

Hi Mike,

in the following :

Despite protests from some waste-disposal companies, state health officials have ordered the levels of bacteria in seawater at popular beaches to be measured and that the results be published.

(A) the levels of bacteria in seawater at popular beaches to be measured and that the results be
(B) that seawater at popular beaches should be measured for their levels of bacteria, with the results being
(C) the measure of levels of bacteria in seawater at popular beaches and the results to be
(D) seawater measured at popular beaches for levels of bacteria, with their results
(E) that the levels of bacteria in seawater at popular beaches be measured and the results

ordered is in participle for still we follow the subjunctive rule ... I know it has to do something with "order" being a command subjunctive and "require" is just a punk which can be anything, take "that" after it, take "to+verb" after it and in the quoted explanation of yours I got to know it dont need these too, it can be a participle and can get rid of TOs and THATs

show me light mike ...

Dear stunn3r,
I would like to help, but to some extent I am having trouble following your question.

In the quoted SC problem, in which OA = (E), "ordered" is not a participle. No, "have ordered" is a full-fledged verb --- in fact, it's the main verb of the whole sentence! If we put the verb in its present participle form, "ordering", then the present participle is active, so this could still take a "that"-clause with a subjunctive.
The senator ordering that the teenagers be charged with a felony will be censured by his peers..
The past participle, "ordered", is passive, so it would modify an order or command, not the person giving it, and thus we couldn't fit a "that"-clause into that structure.
The moratorium on judicial appointments, ordered by the Supreme Court, is likely to extend through the summer.
If we used "ordering" as an gerund, it would take the same structure
In ordering that the banks remain closed, the governor drew the ire of the populace.
As a general rule, any verb keeps all its associated idioms in all of its forms --- not only all tenses, but all verbals (infinitives, participles, gerunds). Many times, the same idiom remains even when we change from the verb form to the noun or adjective form of the same root word
A differs from B.
A, different from B, ...

The verb "require" can take a couple different idioms, but let us not cast aspersions on it. This variety is precisely what allows for creative expression in a variety of forms. Creative expression is one of the many ways in which you can impress others with your intelligence through writing. That's a good thing!! The verb "require" keeps its idioms in its various forms.
The judge required the striking workers to return to work.
The judge required that the striking workers return to work.
The striking workers were required to return to work.
The judge requiring that the striking workers return to work was passed over for appointment to a Federal Court.
In requiring that the striking workers return to work, the judge alienated the unions.
In requiring the striking workers to return to work, the judge alienated the unions.
To require that striking workers return to work is not within the powers of a county judge.
To require striking workers to return to work is not within the powers of a county judge. (slightly awkward, only because of all the to's)
A return to their jobs, required of the workers in court, financially helped the individual workers but broke the spirit of the union.
All of these are correct sentences.

Does all this answer your question?
Mike
_________________

too much .. too much new discoveries and i've my exam on 8th .. That did gave a knot in my head but I'll get to it .. need to read your reply 2-3 times .. These exceptions are killing me, every prep question I do is an exception to some rule, all the answers with "being" are correct .. being is supposed to me wrong 90% of the time but NO, I can just hope that I get questions on exceptions I learned ..

Thanks man ..

Dear stunn3r,
I'm glad I could help. I wanted to point out --- you said, "too much new discoveries", but as you may know, "discoveries" are countable, so we would use "many", not "much." This is one set of rules for which there are really no exceptions --- it's one of the more purely mathematical rules of grammar. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... -vs-fewer/
Countable nouns come in individual units --- you can have one, or two, or three, or etc. Cars, houses, books, sales, horses, discoveries, stars, baseball games, holidays, nations, trees, ideas ---- all these are countable nouns. If the noun can be singular or plural, that's a good hint that it's countable. For countable nouns, we use "many", "how many", "number", "more", and "fewer".
Uncountable nouns are those things that come in contiguously undifferentiated masses, in bulk, without discernible pieces or parts. Time, space, air, water, meat, distance, weight, knowledge, truth, justice, freedom --- these are uncountable nouns. If the noun is always singular, no matter how much there is, that's a good indication that it's uncountable. For countable nouns, we use "much", "how much", "amount", "more", and "less".
He has many books. He has much knowledge.
How many books does he have? How much knowledge does he have?
He bought a large number of books. He gained a large amount of knowledge.
He has more books than I do. He has more knowledge than I do.
I have fewer books than he does. I have less knowledge than he does.

I will caution you --- while these countable/uncountable rules are very precise with essentially no exception, most grammar rules are not like this. Grammar is not mathematics --- clean and rigid and precise. Grammar reflects the oddities of living language.

I realize that your test is very soon, and I sincerely wish you all the best. If you do well, that's fantastic! If you don't do well, and want to take the GMAT a second time, then I am going to recommend that you READ --- read challenging English an hour a day, above and beyond any GMAT prep you are doing. Here's a blog about what to read:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-reading-list/
You don't master grammar by memorizing rules. You master grammar by seeing it in context, and you only see this if you read regularly.

Let me know if you have any further questions in the next few days.
Mike
_________________

OA is B and here is the OE. It is a question from the OG 10th edition.

Official answer Official Guide 10

The subject of the main clause (such firms) presumes a prior reference to the firms in question. Furthermore, the logical subject of to survive and the logical complement of required should be made explicit. All three demands are met by B, the best choice. Choices A, C, and D, with no reference to the firms in question, meet none of these demands. In choice E, the illogical and awkward use of a prepositional phrase (for firms' survival) buries the needed initial reference to firms in a possessive modifier.

Hope this helps.

The sentence appears to be flipped. The subject comes last. If you forget the modifying clause of "an industry marked by rapid innovation and volatile demand" and focus on the remaining part of the sentence its easier to parse the sentence.

Because of the enormous research and development expenditures required to survive in the electronics industry, an industry marked by rapid innovation and volatile demand,such firms tend to be very large.

Take the subject part of the sentence. "such firms tend to be very large." .... "Because of the enormous research and development expenditures required to survive in the electronics industry,".

Because is a Subordinating Conjunctions. A subordinating conjunction introduces a dependent clause and indicates the nature of the relationship among the independent clause(s) and the dependent clause(s). The most common subordinating conjunctions are "after," "although," "as," "because," "before," "how," "if," "once," "since," "than," "that," "though," "till," "until," "when," "where," "whether," and "while."

"such firms tend to be very large" is a complete independent clause. An independent clause (or main clause) is a clause that can stand by itself, also known as a simple sentence. An independent clause contains a subject and a predicate; it makes sense by itself. When "because" is added the dependent clause also has to make sense and also must have a subject. The sentence as written does not have subject. B & E are the only answer choice that introduce a subject in the dependent clause. But B has the more appropriate preposition of "of" instead of "for".

Can someone please explain why B is correct. Isn't it wordy and unidiomatic.

I chose A