Citing increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning by workers, and finding that the plans themselves are excessively complex, the authors of a recent study have found that most eligible American workers had not made the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans. (A) Citing increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning by workers, and finding that the plans themselves are excessively complex, the authors of a recent study have found that most eligible American workers had not made the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans. (B) Increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning on the part of workers, and excess complexity in the plans themselves have been explained by a recent study finding the majority of eligible American workers who do not make the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans. (C) Citing increasing worker mobility between companies, poor worker financial planning, and excessively complex plans themselves as possible explanations, a majority of American workers had failed to make the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans, a recent study has found. (D) The authors of a recent study, citing increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning by workers, and finding that the plans themselves are excessively complex, have found that most eligible American workers do not make the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans. (E) A recent study has found that most eligible American workers fail to make the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans; among the explanations cited are increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning on the workers' part, and excess complexity in the plans themselves.

Wow! This certainly makes sense and is interesting. Mike, can I ask you one more question? a) A built a school which helped GMAT test takers who included students such as X, Y and Z. b) A built a school which helped GMAT test takers who include students such as X, Y and Z Now who include(d) refers to GMAT test takers who are X, Y and Z. a) Whether at the time of A or after the time of A, X, Y and Z will always be GMAT test takers? So shouldn't option (b) always be correct? If you think otherwise, then when should we use which option?

Last visit was: 27 Apr 2026, 17:58

It is currently 27 Apr 2026, 17:58

Toolkit

Sentence Correction (SC - EA only)

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

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Apr 28
Join - GMAT Day!
08:00 AM PDT
-
11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 27
Try OnDemand GMAT Masterclass
11:00 AM EDT
-
12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors

Back to Forum

Create Topic

Citing increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial

1 2

imhimanshu

Joined: 07 Sep 2010

Last visit: 08 Nov 2013

Posts: 216

Own Kudos:

6,372

Given Kudos: 136

GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30 Verified score

Posts: 216

Kudos: 6,372

08 Oct 2013, 17:43

Kudos

Bookmarks

Posting, in case someone has the same doubt-

Quote:

Dear Mike,
In the above explanation, you have given the framework when "Had" alone will be working as complete verb.

Framework:
had" + [noun] + "past participle of verb

Quote:
While children’s programming had once been limited to a few hours a week, at least four cable networks are now dedicated

So, in the above sentence, what is the function of "HAd". Is it working alone as verb or as past perfect tense. the confusion arises because "once" is not a noun but an adverb.
Please clarify.

Thank You.

Dear Himanshu,
For some reasons, as I was typing, the post ceased to exist. Here's the response to your question.

An adverb, especially the adverb "not", often comes between the words of a multi-word verb --- between the auxiliary verbs and the main verbs. That's precisely what is happening in the sentence you quote ---- the main verb is "had .... been limited", broken up by the adverb "once". Again, this is very typical --- adverbs inserted between the words of a multi-word verb.
(1) The President has not been informed of the crisis.
(2) The ambassador would finally meet his Chinese counterpart.
Some people consider this construction in poor taste: while it's often unavoidable with the word "not", as in #1, some would argue that, when it is avoidable, the sentence should be re-arranged to avoid this. These purists would re-write #2 as: The ambassador finally would meet his Chinese counterpart. This is not a strict rule of grammar, but as a general pattern, the GMAT tends to follow this guideline on correct GMAT SC answers. In and of itself, this would NEVER be the deciding split of a GMAT SC question --- it's too subtle. The word "not" always comes after the first auxiliary verb, and this is true for any auxiliary verb.
He has not come.
He had not come.
He would not come.
He did not come.
He should not come.
He would not come.
He may not come.
etc.
That's a quite standard and ordinary construction in English, although, as I say, some purists question it if the adverb is something other than "not."

The other construction, much rarer, somewhat more colloquial, and not particularly likely to find on the GMAT, is [verb] + [object] + [adjective].
The blow knocked him unconscious.
The news made me excited.
The police chief had the suspects arrested.
This is a very different structure from the first. The confusion arises because of the tricky verb "has/had", which can function either as an auxiliary verb or as a full-fledged independent verb with a multitude of meanings. It's very important to distinguish whether the word between "had" and a participle is an adverb or a noun.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)

AdmitJA

Joined: 04 Jul 2014

Last visit: 26 Mar 2018

Posts: 276

Own Kudos:

1,243

Given Kudos: 420

Location: India

GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V34 Verified score

GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37 Verified score

GPA: 3.58

WE:Analyst (Accounting)

Products:

GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37 Verified score

Posts: 276

Kudos: 1,243

29 Nov 2014, 09:46

Kudos

Bookmarks

Hi Mike,

I eliminated C and E right away because the statement reads "a study has found". How can I study find? Only authors of a study can find something? :shock:

mikemcgarry

A good challenging SC.

Citing increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning by workers, and finding that the plans themselves are excessively complex, the authors of a recent study have found that most eligible American workers had not made the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans.

Notice, this has a failed parallel structure:
/Citing
//increasing worker mobility between companies
//poor financial planning by workers
and
/finding
That's a variant of parallelism that the GMAT does not accept. We don't simply have three element in parallel, but some bizarre 2 vs. 1 split. No good.

A) Citing increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning by workers, and finding that the plans themselves are excessively complex, the authors of a recent study have found that most eligible American workers had not made the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans.
Wrong for the failure in parallelism.

B) Increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning on the part of workers, and excess complexity in the plans themselves have been explained by a recent study finding the majority of eligible American workers who do not make the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans.
The awkward wordy passive construction "have been explained by a recent study finding" is anathema on GMAT SC.

C) Citing increasing worker mobility between companies, poor worker financial planning, and excessively complex plans themselves as possible explanations, a majority of American workers had failed to make the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans, a recent study has found.
Misplaced modifier. "Citing blah blah ...., a majority of American workers ...." The American workers were not doing the citing. The American works are experiencing the problems, but the majority is not writing about the problem. It is the study, or the authors of the study, that did the citing --- they have to be the target of this modifier.

D)The authors of a recent study, citing increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning by workers, and finding that the plans themselves are excessively complex, have found that most eligible American workers do not make the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans.
This answer choice repeats the faulty parallelism construction of the prompt.

E) A recent study has found that most eligible American workers fail to make the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans; among the explanations cited are increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning on the workers' part, and excess complexity in the plans themselves.
Clear, direct, active, and the parallelism is handled correctly. This one is flawless.

Let me know if anyone reading this has any questions.

Mike :-)

mikemcgarry

Magoosh GMAT Instructor

Joined: 28 Dec 2011

Last visit: 06 Aug 2018

Posts: 4,474

Own Kudos:

30,890

[1]

Given Kudos: 130

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 4,474

Kudos: 30,890

[1]

01 Dec 2014, 11:17

Kudos

Bookmarks

joseph0alexander

Hi Mike,
I eliminated C and E right away because the statement reads "a study has found". How can I study find? Only authors of a study can find something? :shock:

Dear Joseph,
I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, this is a funny thing about English ---- some perfectly acceptable things don't really make logical sense, but they are what people say. Scientific writings regularly attribute cognitive verbs to the impersonal idea of a "study" ----
"studies show that . . . "
"studies suggest that . . . "
"studies have demonstrated that . . . "

These are extremely common in scientific writing, and therefore, perfectly acceptable. Are they strictly logical? Well, maybe or maybe not, but that doesn't matter at all --- they are 100% acceptable and legitimate, because they are regularly used.

You see, you can get to GMAT SC mastery just by learning the rules of grammar and using your own logic in a vacuum. You have to know how the language is actually used in real life. You have to read. See this blog post:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/how-to-im ... bal-score/

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)

AdmitJA

Joined: 04 Jul 2014

Last visit: 26 Mar 2018

Posts: 276

Own Kudos:

1,243

Given Kudos: 420

Location: India

GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V34 Verified score

GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37 Verified score

GPA: 3.58

WE:Analyst (Accounting)

Products:

GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37 Verified score

Posts: 276

Kudos: 1,243

01 Dec 2014, 11:35

Kudos

Bookmarks

mikemcgarry

These are extremely common in scientific writing, and therefore, perfectly acceptable. Are they strictly logical? Well, maybe or maybe not, but that doesn't matter at all --- they are 100% acceptable and legitimate, because they are regularly used.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)

Wow! This certainly makes sense and is interesting. Mike, can I ask you one more question?

a) A built a school which helped GMAT test takers who included students such as X, Y and Z. <all verbs in the past tense>

b) A built a school which helped GMAT test takers who include students such as X, Y and Z <just included in the previous sentence has become include>

Now who include(d) refers to GMAT test takers who are X, Y and Z.
a) Whether at the time of A or after the time of A, X, Y and Z will always be GMAT test takers?

So shouldn't option (b) always be correct? If you think otherwise, then when should we use which option? :shock:

mikemcgarry

Magoosh GMAT Instructor

Joined: 28 Dec 2011

Last visit: 06 Aug 2018

Posts: 4,474

Own Kudos:

30,890

[2]

Given Kudos: 130

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 4,474

Kudos: 30,890

[2]

01 Dec 2014, 14:31

Kudos

Bookmarks

joseph0alexander

mikemcgarry

Wow! This certainly makes sense and is interesting. Mike, can I ask you one more question?

Dear Joseph,
Context! Context! Context! Context is everything! Language rules do not make sense outside of context.

What matters for the tense of "include" is whether those people are living or not. If they are living and current, or at least some are living, then the present tense (or present perfect tense) would make the most sense.
The US Democratic Party includes Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
The US Democratic Party has included the Kennedy brothers, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama.

If everyone is dead and gone, we could use either the past tense (to emphasize completion) or the present perfect tense (to emphasize their connection to the present). Either could be correct, depending on context.
The US Republican party included Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, whose concerns were more in line with the modern Democratic party.
(contrast to present, so the past tense is more appropriate)
The US Republican party has included Coolidge and Eisenhower, whose fiscally conservative policies resonate with modern Republicans.
(shows continuity with the present, so the present perfect is more appropriate)

I would recommend: DO NOT create examples of your own. DO NOT. Instead, find examples in GMAT SC questions or in other sophisticated writing.

Does all this make sense?

Mike :-)

AdmitJA

Joined: 04 Jul 2014

Last visit: 26 Mar 2018

Posts: 276

Own Kudos:

1,243

Given Kudos: 420

Location: India

GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V34 Verified score

GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37 Verified score

GPA: 3.58

WE:Analyst (Accounting)

Products:

GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37 Verified score

Posts: 276

Kudos: 1,243

02 Dec 2014, 00:24

Kudos

Bookmarks

mikemcgarry

I would recommend: DO NOT create examples of your own. DO NOT. Instead, find examples in GMAT SC questions or in other sophisticated writing.

Does all this make sense?

Mike :-)

Yes it does Mike! I will implement your recommendation!

Thank you.

rohitmanglik

Joined: 24 Jul 2011

Last visit: 22 May 2025

Posts: 124

Own Kudos:

117

Given Kudos: 93

Location: India

Schools: Tepper '18 McCombs '18 NUS '16

GMAT 1: 570 Q50 V19 Verified score

GMAT 2: 650 Q49 V28 Verified score

GMAT 3: 690 Q50 V34 Verified score

WE:Information Technology (Finance: Investment Banking)

Products:

Schools: Tepper '18 McCombs '18 NUS '16

GMAT 3: 690 Q50 V34 Verified score

Posts: 124

Kudos: 117

13 Oct 2015, 07:25

Kudos

Bookmarks

Hi KyleWiddison,

I have same doubt as that of daagh.

Is it legitimate to say that inanimate object "study" found something. I thought usage of "Authors" is mandatory over here.

Kindly help.

daagh

Yes! E may the best among the bunch. However, why is E ignoring the authors and just mentioning the study alone? Can an inanimate study stand to replace a dynamic body of authors? In other words, does E carry the mantle of the original?

gbascurs

Joined: 25 Dec 2012

Last visit: 27 Nov 2017

Posts: 11

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 4

Posts: 11

Kudos: 6

17 Aug 2016, 14:08

Kudos

Bookmarks

egmat

Hi there

Citing increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning by workers, and finding that the plans themselves are excessively complex, the authors of a recent study have found that most eligible American workers had not made the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans.

Error Analysis

1. There are three reasons cited by the “authors” of the study that says that most eligible American workers don’t make the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans. These three reasons are:
a. increasing worker mobility between companies,
b. poor financial planning by workers, and
c. finding that the plans themselves are excessively complex.
If we study the structure of these three entities carefully, we will find that the first two are noun entities while the last entity is a clause. This structure makes the list un-parallel.

2. Use of part perfect tense “had not made” is incorrect. The study has found out a fact that should be written in simple present tense. There are no two past events in the sentence that we need sequencing.

PoE:

Choice A: Incorrect for the reasons discussed above.

Choice B: Increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning on the part of workers, and excess complexity in the plans themselves have been explained by a recent study finding the majority of eligible American workers who do not make the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans. Incorrect:
1. This choice says that three reasons have been explained by a recent study. It seems to suggest that study has explained these three topics. The choice fails to establish these three factors as the reason for most eligible Americans failing to contribute to their employer-offered retirement plans.
2. The choice also suggests that the study found majority of eligible American workers. This choice distorts the intended meaning.

Choice C: Citing increasing worker mobility between companies, poor worker financial planning, and excessively complex plans themselves as possible explanations, a majority of American workers had failed to make the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans, a recent study has found. Incorrect:
1. This choice has a modifier error. Verb-ing modifier “citing” is illogically modifying “a majority of American workers”. This modifier should modify “a recent study”.
2. Same verb tense error as in choice A.
3. Two independent clauses have been connected using comma.

Choice D: The authors of a recent study, citing increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning by workers, and finding that the plans themselves are excessively complex, have found that most eligible American workers do not make the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans. Incorrect.
1. This choice has changed the intended list. Now “citing” and “finding” have become parallel instead of the three reasons cited by the study.
2. The choice is wordy.

Choice E: A recent study has found that most eligible American workers fail to make the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans; among the explanations cited are increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning on the workers' part, and excess complexity in the plans themselves. Correct. This choice is an error free concise choice. This choice has removed “the authors” but that does not hamper the meaning of the sentence. This choice says that the study had found out. It is obvious that has been written by someone. The authors have out the findings into the study. So the study has found implies that the authors of the study has found. The finding of the study is of importance here.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Hi Shraddha,

Is E a clause? It is not so clear to me see the Subject, Verb and Object of this clause:

"among the explanations cited are increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning on the workers' part, and excess complexity in the plans themselves"