Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Goldman Sachs Inc. financed Crystal Tec

Im surprised not to find your answer in the QOTD segment!GMATNinja

I have a query. How did we end up choosing D over C ?

Is using both Before and had been financed redundant ?
Is it the investor which is ambiguous as it doesn't refer directly to Goldman Sachs ?

Sure thing, mSKR. I will respond to your questions below.


Why would we ignore an obvious problem with (B)? Although reading just the underlined portion might lead you to believe that either company could be the one that had faced bankruptcy, reading the non-underlined portion, a crucial SC skill, leads us to a single interpretation: the bankrupt tech company must be the same as Crystal Technologies, a tech company, since the GMAT™ would not force someone to know what type of company Goldman Sachs was (even if there is a clue in financed). Yes, had financed and withdrew are not parallel, but it could be the case that Goldman Sachs had put money down on Crystal Technologies and later withdrew additional assistance. I would not use the mismatched verbs alone to eliminate the answer choice.


It depends on what the sentence aims to convey. When a before construct is used, sometimes the simple past makes sense: Before I ran, I ate a light meal. In another sentence, the past perfect might work better: Before his ascension to the throne, Henry VIII had already garnered a reputation for being uncompromising. More important than asking whether the past perfect is redundant or incorrect, you should be wondering whether it is necessary to convey the idea the sentence aims to express. If the answer is no, then stick with the simple past.


That is not how SC works. The question would have to provide enough information for you to be able to make a clearcut distinction as to which company did what. I would not recommend relying on outside knowledge to guide your decision-making during such a question.


Yes, as I indicated above. There is no room for misinterpretation since the appositive phrase after Crystal Tech—a tech company—is later repeated, but with a more restrictive article—the bankrupt tech company....


Any time. (Even on RC.)

- Andrew

C is also wrong for the reason--- the investor maybe different from Goldman ... changing the meaning of the setence.

Shouldn't had been be the correct answer since the past peerfect is use for two incidents

Question stem : "Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Goldman Sachs Inc. financed Crystal Technologies, a tech company, as a venture capital investment and they would withdrew all their funding"

the pronoun error cannot be found in any answer.

[quote="Vercules"]Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Goldman Sachs Inc. financed Crystal Technologies, a tech company, as a venture capital investment and they would withdrew all their funding only after a long and comprehensive analysis of the bankrupt tech company’s account books.


(A) Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Goldman Sachs Inc. financed Crystal Technologies, a tech company, as a venture capital investment and they would withdraw all its funding

(B) Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Goldman Sachs Inc. had financed Crystal Technologies, a tech company, as a venture capital investment and withdrew all its funding

(C) Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Crystal Technologies, a tech company, had been financed by Goldman Sachs Inc. as a venture capital investment and the investor withdrew all its funding

(D) Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Crystal Technologies, a tech company, was financed as a venture capital investment by Goldman Sachs Inc., which withdrew all its funding

(E) Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Crystal Technologies, a tech company, was a venture capital investment of Goldman Sachs Inc. , who withdrew all its funding
*****************************************************************************
We must ask who got bankrupt? Crystal or Goldman? Read lines after underlined portion and clearly Crystal got bankrupt and Goldman withdrew funds.
(A) & (B) are wrong, clear modifier error.
(C) who withdrew funding Goldman did. The investor confuses the meaning.
(D) Correct
(E) 'Who' is confusing between Cyrstal or Goldman

Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Goldman Sachs Inc. financed Crystal Technologies, a tech company, as a venture capital investment and they would withdrew all their funding only after a long and comprehensive analysis of the bankrupt tech company’s account books.

(A) Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Goldman Sachs Inc. financed Crystal Technologies, a tech company, as a venture capital investment and they would withdraw all its funding -> "Goldman Sachs" is not bankrupted, it was "Crystal Technologies", a tech company (from non underlined part). Incorrect.

(B) Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Goldman Sachs Inc. had financed Crystal Technologies, a tech company, as a venture capital investment and withdrew all its funding -> Same as A. Incorrect.

(C) Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Crystal Technologies, a tech company, had been financed by Goldman Sachs Inc. as a venture capital investment and the investor withdrew all its funding -> we have before and had been together. It is incorrect.

(D) Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Crystal Technologies, a tech company, was financed as a venture capital investment by Goldman Sachs Inc., which withdrew all its funding -> It is better than C. Let's keep it.

(E) Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Crystal Technologies, a tech company, was a venture capital investment of Goldman Sachs Inc. , who withdrew all its funding -> who modifies Living think, we need "which" to modify Goldman Sachs Inc..

So, I think D.

Hi AndrewN sir

I would like to know your comments on B



1.) If for a moment, I ignore which company was bankrupted , What are the key reasons to reject B:
( I could find only 1 key reason)
--> withdrew and had financed - are not parallel. because both happened before 2008- strong reason to reject? Should it be had withdrawn
any other?

2.) I don't think presence of had is redundant. It just add more clarity to the sentence. Am I right?

3.) Can I use outside knowledge to solve such question because I know Goldman sachs is still existing and was not bankrupted . I remember about Lehman Brothers that was bankrupted. So if Lehman Brothers was present then I could have used that knowledge to get a hint.

4.) Finally, It is clear from the text "bankrupt tech company’s account books. " that Crystal Tech was bankrupted and investor i.e. GS withdrew money.


Thanks!

Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Goldman Sachs Inc. financed Crystal Technologies, a tech company, as a venture capital investment and they would withdrew all their funding only after a long and comprehensive analysis of the bankrupt tech company’s account books.


(A) Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Goldman Sachs Inc. financed Crystal Technologies, a tech company, as a venture capital investment and they would withdraw all its funding

(B) Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Goldman Sachs Inc. had financed Crystal Technologies, a tech company, as a venture capital investment and withdrew all its funding

(C) Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Crystal Technologies, a tech company, had been financed by Goldman Sachs Inc. as a venture capital investment and the investor withdrew all its funding

(D) Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Crystal Technologies, a tech company, was financed as a venture capital investment by Goldman Sachs Inc., which withdrew all its funding CORRECT

(E) Before its bankruptcy in 2008, Crystal Technologies, a tech company, was a venture capital investment of Goldman Sachs Inc. , who withdrew all its funding

It would not be redundant if it used with the correct verb tense.

I would say that "the investor" introduces a different meaning to the sentence. We know which company invested in Crystal Technologies. Also, the semtence has 2 independent clauses. To use 2 independent clauses in the same sentence with "and", we need a comma, which is missing in this sentence.

Posted from my mobile device

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.