[/quote]


Hello Rdbasak,

Although your question is not for me, allow me to help you with this one.

The correct idiom has been used in Choice D - have allowed the manufacturing company to lower something. The usage of that and for after have allowed in Choices C & E respectively is incorrect. The word allow is always followed by the "to verb" phrase. This is the usage we see in the correct answer choice D. Hence, it is correct.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

In the official answer key. It is written: "
the manufacturing company could be
construed as plural (referring collectively to
the decision makers and spokespeople who are
projecting losses and forecasting a profit) "
Shouldn't it be singular ?

Yes, the GMAT generally treats a noun like "company" as singular. The pronouns in (A) are particularly bad because they presumably refer back to the same noun, and one is singular while the other is plural. But you're right that "they" would be enough on its own to eliminate this answer choice.

Keep in mind that the "official" explanations in the OG books are not written by the same people who write the questions. Sometimes the explanations are helpful, and sometimes not so much.
_________________

Cost cutting and restructuring has allowed the manufacturing company to lower its projected losses for the second quarter, and they are forecasting a profit before the end of the year.

A. has allowed the manufacturing company to lower its projected losses for the second quarter, and they are forecasting
B. has allowed for the manufacturing company to lower its projected losses in the second quarter and to forecast
C. have allowed that the manufacturing company can lower the projected losses for the second quarter, and to forecast
D. have allowed the manufacturing company to lower its projected second-quarter losses and to forecast
Correct
E. have allowed for the manufacturing company to lower the projected losses in the second quarter, as well as forecasting
_________________

According to the official Guide: Allowed for and allowed that are incorrect idioms. The second thing to note is that Options C and E both have the issue of parallelism.

The major thing to notice here is cost cutting and restructuring (plural subject) so has is out automatically. That gives us C,D,E

The next big split is parallelism in the sentence, to lower and to forecast is perfect. That gives us D.

I don’t know if as well as is such a big thing, but the major reason to eliminate E is “ have allowed for the manufacturing company”, changes meaning completely.

Posted from my mobile device

dear AndrewN,
I picked up B just because I reviewed cost cutting and restructuring is a singular subject.

whether because cutting and restructuring cannot coexist at the same time, so cutting and restructuring cannot modify cost ?

I know it is not good to edit OG question, but I just want to know whether "cutting or restricting " can modify cost. then cost cutting or restructuring is a singular noun ?

Hello, zoezhuyan. It is a good idea to be conservative when it comes to interpreting SC questions. Whenever you encounter the structure X and Y, you want to think of it as a plural entity unless the contextual clues definitely steer you in a different direction. Yes, X or Y is different; in the sentence at hand, restructuring could present a singular alternative to cost cutting, as in, Either cost cutting or restructuring has allowed.... But now we are grasping at straws. I would suggest checking out this Subject-Verb Agreement page through the Towson University Online Writing Support Initiative for further reference.

- Andrew

thanks ANDREW,
I am a bit confusing,
both cutting and restricting modify cost? this means singular.
or there are two things, one is cost cutting, another is restricting? this means plural.

what about if cost cutting or restructuring ?