Because of the enormous research and development expenditures required

I have one example that may undermine the logic for answering this question as option B.
In Manhattan SC book, it is specifically mentioned that the usage of 'required' is wrong in the following sentence

She requires of her friend to do work.

Now Isn't the structure of the sentence at hand similar to the structure of the above sentence?
Please explain this....

No, the problem above is different. In the SC, we are talking about the expenditures that are required of firms. Why are these expenditures required? To survive.

In the sentence you cited, "she" requires something of her friend, but she doesn't require it in order to work. In other words, she is not doing the working. Since the idea being expressed here is much simpler, we should use a simpler form: "She requires her friend to work."
_________________

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.
_________________

og explanation said that "such firm" need "firm" not "firms'".

but og explanation sometime is INCORRECT.

required for something
is not idiomatic
I think.

do you agree with me ?

Hi thangvietnam,

Let us recollect the pronoun rule: A possessive noun is not a good antecedent of a pronoun. e.g.,

The teacher is rechecking John's research thesis to determine whether he has used his original idea.

John's is not a good antecedent for he because of the above rule.

Please note that the word such combined with a noun is used to refer to an antecedent mentioned previously. The antecedent in this case also should preferably not be in possessive. For this reason the possessive firms' is a poor antecedent of such firms.

Is this explanation satisfactory?

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.

'Such firms' need a reference in the sentence. hence, only B fits in here.
_________________

Logic + Modifiers

A, C, and D can be eliminated because they give a meaning that “enormous research and development expenditures” are required of the ‘industry’. The correct meaning is that such enormous expenditures are required of firms to survive in the electronics industry.
E is wrong because it also fails to convey the meaning effectively.
B is the best choice.

Sir, is it a typo error ? In option B ' OF FIRMS' instead of ' Required FOR FARMS to survive' as suggested by you.

Hi Dipesh, it's not a typo; this is a perfectly valid usage.
_________________

But such firms are not a pronoun so why it requires a clear antecedent?

As per my understanding from various sources

in the case of passive form we normally use require + infinitive, but in the case of active form we use the subjunctive form, which is require +that+ simple form of verb.

The judge required the striking workers to return to work.
The judge required that the striking workers return to work.

After seeing those statements, i am confused regarding the usage of require.

Can you please explain this part in detail.

mahi816 In the cases you're citing, "required" is the verb. In this sentence, "required" is an adjective modifying "expenditures." To get the idea, we could replace "required of firms" with "needed by firms":

Because of the enormous expenditures needed (by firms) to survive in this industry, such firms tend to be very large.
_________________

Dear IanStewart

I failed to find fault with the wording of choice E. Could you please help sort out my doubts below?

1. Whether the phrase “firms’ survival in the electronics industry” clearly illustrates that firms are from this industry?
2. I am aware that a pronoun can refer to a possessive noun, but not sure whether such firms can refer to firms’ ? If the answer to my first question is “yes”, then to the second must be “yes” either, isn’t it?
3. I eliminated E only because it doesn’t clarify whom enormous expenditures are required of. If it were something else, then there would be no reason for such firms to be very large. Are there any other valid reasons?

Your thoughts are much appreciated. Many thanks beforehand.
_________________

To #1, I'd say yes, to #2 I'd also say yes, and to #3, I'd say you eliminated E for the right reason.

There's a lot of discussion above about whether pronouns can refer to possessives. Maybe it's preferable if they don't (especially in more complicated sentences), but that's not a criterion I would use to eliminate an answer choice on the GMAT. In this sentence, say:

Ajike's time is limited, so she won't attend the meeting today.

we could rewrite it as follows:

Ajike has limited time, so she won't attend the meeting today.

but I don't see any reason to prefer the rewrite to the original. It's clear who "she" refers to in both examples.

It's true in many SC questions that more than one answer will be grammatically acceptable, but one will still be better than the rest. That's how I feel about B and E here. In most cases, in good writing, we usually* want to be clear about who is doing what. In this sentence, in the first clause, we want to be clear about who is bearing the "enormous research and development" expense. Answer B makes that crystal clear, but answer E does not. So B is better writing than E.

*I say 'usually', because there are exceptions. Sometimes the object of an action is more important than the subject, and in such cases, it might be preferable to be unclear about the subject, or to use a passive construction. So a sentence like "After the 1899 littering law was enacted, the streets were much cleaner" is fine, even though the first half is passive, because the sentence means to draw attention to the law itself, and not to who enacted the law.

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.

(A) to survive -> It seems correct. As something required to survive. But in non-underlined part, "such firm" needs a reference in 1st clause as well. Incorrect.

(B) of firms to survive -> It is better than A. Let's keep it.

(C) for surviving -> Doesn't have reference for "such firms". Incorrect.

(D) for survival -> Same as C.

(E) for firms’ survival -> to survive is better choice. Incorrect.

So, I think B.

Hey buddy I'll answer this one. The usage of the word 'require' in the question you posted is different from the question here.

The question you posted about the province I live in (yay Ontario!) states that the legislation 'requires' something, which is a demand that can only be adequately expressed in the subjunctive form 'verb in any tense + that + simple form of another verb' = 'REQUIRED that wages BE the same'.

However, in this question about firm's survival, 'required to survive' is using the verb 'require' as a 'necessary' condition for survival, an objective description. No one is demanding anyone else to do something. Hence the form 'verb + infinitive of another verb' is fine, and the use of subjunctive form would be wrong;

edit: I just realized that I replied a post from 10 years ago...I must be crazy...but i'll leave it up here anyway for others who either might be wondering about the same thing or kind enough to point out where I may be wrong.

Hi mikemcgarry -

Thank you for the valueable information and all the efforts made by you to guide the students.
The explanation given above by you is concludes that Option B is correct and the usage - Required for firms to survive is the correct form , highlighted below for your reference.

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

However, option B says required of firms to survive.

can you please help to clarify the confusion b/w required for and required of?

thanks

Dear Experts,

It is easy to select (B) because there is "such firms" un non-underlined portion. However, I don't understand the meaning of "required of firms" in choice (B). What is the meaning of the enormous research and development expenditures required of firms to survive... ?

Hello Tanchat,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, "the enormous research and development expenditures required of firms to survive" simply means "the enormous research and development expenditures that firms need to survive".

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