Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 10:34 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 10:34
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4   
605-655 Level|   Comparisons|      
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,108
Own Kudos:
32,886
 [18]
Given Kudos: 700
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,108
Kudos: 32,886
 [18]
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 24 Jul 2014, 08:43
7
Kudos
Add Kudos
11
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
SidKaria
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled automobile companies’ common stocks to new highs, several industry analysts expect automakers, in order to conserve cash, to set dividends more conservatively that they were.



to set dividends more conservatively than they were
to set dividends more conservatively than they have been
to be more conservative than they have been in setting dividends
that they will be more conservative than they were in setting dividends
that they will be more conservative than they have been to set dividends





A) incorrect.

First, i thought that they is ambiguous, but it is not.Here they is referring to dividends. "analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than dividends were set".

if they would refer to automakers than the sentence would be" analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than automakers have been setting".

neither setting can be assumed nor have been is used.

b) incorrect.

they refers to dividends.

it can not refer to automakers because we need setting at the end. but we can only assume set,as setting is not used anywhere in the sentence.

C) correct.

they can only refer to automakers.

D) were is incorrect verb.They is not ambiguous.

e) in setting should be used. they is not ambiguous.



please correct me if i am wrong and also let me know if i missed anything.
Show more

Hi Sid,

Thanks for posting your question here. :-)

Well, this sentence compares the automakers' two states in that they were conservative in the past and now they will have to be more conservative. Hence, the pronoun "they" in the original sentence refers to "automakers".

Now lets do the PoE:

Choice A - It is incorrect because in the clause " they were setting", the word "setting" is missing because this word is not mentioned anywhere.

Choice B - The same missing word "setting" makes this choice incorrect as well as we need the verb "have been setting".

Choice C - This is the correct answer as it conveys the comparison c;early.

Choice D - Your reasoning is correct.

Choice E - Your reasoning is correct.

Hope this helps. :-)
Thanks.
SJ
User avatar
Maxirosario2012
User avatar
Joined: 02 Apr 2012
Last visit: 11 Nov 2016
Posts: 51
Own Kudos:
181
 [2]
Given Kudos: 155
Location: United States (VA)
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
Schools: UVA Darden (M) Cambridge'16 (D) Kenan-Flagler '17 (A) LBS '17 (S) WBS '17 HEC Sept'16
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: UVA Darden (M) Cambridge'16 (D) Kenan-Flagler '17 (A) LBS '17 (S) WBS '17 HEC Sept'16
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V34
Posts: 51
Kudos: 181
 [2]
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 09 Dec 2014, 06:57
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
There is no pronoun issue with B; but there is a ellipsis issue in this option. Remember, in order to a ellipsis to occur, we need 2 alternative meanings in the same sentence.
In B, the comparison is between the level of conservationism in the past (it is not specified that this conservationism is regarding the setting of dividends) and the level of conservationism that the analysts expect now (with regard to the setting of dividends). But without specifing that the conservationism in the past was related to the setting of dividends, the comparison is ambiguous. And this is the reason why I think B is wrong.
User avatar
AR15J
User avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Last visit: 15 May 2024
Posts: 214
Own Kudos:
161
Given Kudos: 145
Location: India
GPA: 3.9
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 214
Kudos: 161
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 22 Feb 2017, 20:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I read all the explanation, but I still could not understand why choice B is incorrect? Ellipses are not preferred when we have another correct choice that seems to be wordy?
User avatar
sayantanc2k
User avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Last visit: 09 Dec 2022
Posts: 2,393
Own Kudos:
15,523
 [13]
Given Kudos: 26
Location: Germany
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE:Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Expert
Expert reply
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
Posts: 2,393
Kudos: 15,523
 [13]
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 23 Feb 2017, 11:34
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
8
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AR15J
I read all the explanation, but I still could not understand why choice B is incorrect? Ellipses are not preferred when we have another correct choice that seems to be wordy?
Show more


In option A and B, the pronoun "they" refers to "automakers" (NOT "dividends") by virtue of parallelism*. Thus option A and B do not make sense: "...than automakers were" / "..than automakers have been" are both wrong because there isn't a possible word that is omitted (after "were"/"have been") occurring already in the sentence. The correct word that could follow is "setting", but this word does not occur in the sentence. Omission is not allowed from the second element of a parallel structure if the word does not already occur in the first element. Here the first element has the word "set", not "setting". Thus both options A and B are wrong.

[*If there are two antecedents of a pronoun which is the subject of a clause, then the subject pronoun refers to subject noun in another clause in the sentence (rather than a non-subject noun).]
User avatar
AR15J
User avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Last visit: 15 May 2024
Posts: 214
Own Kudos:
161
Given Kudos: 145
Location: India
GPA: 3.9
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 214
Kudos: 161
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 23 Feb 2017, 23:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thanks RD and Sayantanc2k,

The below OG question confused me.



Traffic safety officials predict that drivers will be equally likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as the current one.

A. equally likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as
B. equally likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as they are
C. equally likely that they will exceed the proposed speed limit as
D. as likely that they will exceed the proposed speed limit as
E. as likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as they are.

Correct answer is E. When we exapand choice E

Traffic safety officials predict that drivers will be as likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as they are exceeding the current one.

here "to exceed" is replaced by "exceeding" in the later part of the sentence. Please help !
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [3]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [3]
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 23 Feb 2017, 23:56
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AR15J
Traffic safety officials predict that drivers will be equally likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as the current one.

A. equally likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as
B. equally likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as they are
C. equally likely that they will exceed the proposed speed limit as
D. as likely that they will exceed the proposed speed limit as
E. as likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as they are.

Correct answer is E. When we exapand choice E

Traffic safety officials predict that drivers will be as likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as they are exceeding the current one.

here "to exceed" is replaced by "exceeding" in the later part of the sentence. Please help !
Show more
Keep in mind that there is no full stop at the end of the last option.

Option E does not give us Traffic safety officials predict that drivers will be as likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as they are exceeding the current one.

Instead, option E says
Traffic safety officials predict that drivers will be as likely to exceed the proposed speed limit as they are likely to exceed the current one.

Why did you go for the first one?
avatar
nikhilbhide
avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2015
Last visit: 21 May 2018
Posts: 10
Own Kudos:
5
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 10
Kudos: 5
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 03 Feb 2018, 23:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Experts,
I do understand the role that ellipsis is playing in this question. However, I am not able to understand what is required to repair option A.
I did select option C, but I want to understand ellipsis in more detail; hence I would like to understand why do we need action verb to repair option A.
One of the post specifies that we require action verb - did/have done (refer to below)

several industry analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively that they were. Were can not work, it has to be do, have done or did because first part of comparision has action so we need [action not linking] verb.

Can you please resolve the doubt?

- Nikhil
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 04 Feb 2018, 21:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nikhilbhide
I am not able to understand what is required to repair option A.
Show more
Hi nikhilbhide, the core part of option A is:

Several industry analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than they were.

Since this involves Ellipsis, the most logical way to complete option A would be:

Several industry analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than they (automakers) were (conservative in setting dividends).

Now, the issue becomes clear. The above sentence is comparing:

i) How the automakers will set dividends (in future) Vs

ii) How conservative the automakers were in the past

This is not an apples-to apples comparison. An apples-to apples comparison would be:

i) How the automakers will set dividends (in future) Vs How the automakers set dividends in the past

Or

ii) How conservative the automakers will be (in future) Vs How conservative the automakers were in the past

In other words, we can’t have a mix-n-match.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses Comparisons, their application and examples in significant detail. If someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.
User avatar
GMATGuruNY
User avatar
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,344
Own Kudos:
3,796
 [5]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,344
Kudos: 3,796
 [5]
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 17 Jun 2018, 03:57
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
manimgoindowndown
Could someone please explain how the they, in choice A and B are ambiguous? To me they are right next to a the noun they are referring to, and automakers is seperated by a comma.
Show more
Many comparisons employ ELLIPSIS: the omission of words whose presence is implied.
When words are omitted, the intended meaning must be crystal clear.
An ellipsis that allows for more than one logical interpretation is not viable.
A and B are incorrect because each allows for more than one logical interpretation.

Case 1: they = the automakers
A) Several industry analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than the automakers were [setting dividends].
B) Several industry analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than the automakers have been [setting dividends].

Case 2: they = the dividends
A) Several industry analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than the dividends were [set].
B) Several industry analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than the dividends have been [set].

Since Cases 1 and 2 are both logical interpretations, eliminate A and B.

Quote:
The only doubt in retrospect I have about B is I feel like the sentence leaves at an incomplete thought (missing 'setting' as the last word)
Show more
RULE:
A participle (VERBed or VERBing) may be omitted only if appears IN THE SAME FORM earlier in the sentence.
Answer choice B, Case 1:
Several industry analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than the automakers have been [setting dividends].
In Case 1, the participle in brackets -- setting -- is omitted but implied.
Because this participle does not appear earlier in the sentence, it may not be omitted in the clause in red -- another reason to eliminate B.

Quote:
I am not understanding how the 'they' in C is any less ambiguous than in A or B
Show more
In A and B, they is preceded by two viable antecedents (automakers and dividends).
As a result, A and B each allow for more than one logical interpretation.
C: Several industry analysts expect automakers to be more conservative than they have been in setting dividends.
Here, they is preceded by only ONE logical antecedent -- automakers -- so the intended referent for they is crystal clear.
avatar
ramuramu1838
avatar
Joined: 04 Mar 2018
Last visit: 19 Dec 2022
Posts: 23
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 154
Posts: 23
Kudos: 1
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 27 Mar 2020, 04:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dear GMATNinja,
why is option-D incorrect?
thanks amd regards
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,784
 [8]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,784
 [8]
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 02 Apr 2020, 08:39
7
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ramuramu1838
dear GMATNinja,
why is option-D incorrect?
thanks amd regards
Show more
It's fine to say, "Analysts expect {something}.":

  • For example, "Analysts expect that automakers will lose money in 2020."
  • The "that" clause functions as a noun here... it's the thing that analysts expect.

It's also fine to modify the {something} with a noun modifier:

  • For example, "Analysts expect volatility that will continue through the end of the fiscal year."
  • Here the thing that the analysts expect is "volatility", and the "that" clause simply modifies "volatility".

But in choice (D), we essentially have, "Analysts expect automakers that they will be more conservative than they were in setting dividends." If we replace the pronoun "they" with "automakers", we have:

  • "Analysts expect automakers that automakers will be more conservative than they were in setting dividends."

Analysts can expect automakers to {do} something. But expecting "automakers that automakers" is nonsense, so it's out.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
TargetMBA007
User avatar
Joined: 22 Nov 2019
Last visit: 14 Nov 2025
Posts: 256
Own Kudos:
331
 [1]
Given Kudos: 215
Schools: Stanford (S)
GPA: 4.0
Schools: Stanford (S)
Posts: 256
Kudos: 331
 [1]
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 12 Jun 2020, 02:02
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
daagh
In this issue, whatever the structure, the pronoun they can refer only to automakers. It is only they who can set dividends for their companies and not the analysts nor any other plural words such as dividends. So we can rest at store all doubts about the pronoun reference.

More importantly the underlying principle here as a previous writer has pointed out, is the rule of ellipsis that disqualifies the choices A and B.

(A) to set dividends more conservatively than they were( in setting dividends )
(B) to set dividends more conservatively than they have been ( in setting dividends)

Show more

Thanks Daagh,

It would be great if you can expand on why there is no pronoun ambiguity in this as it seems there are two schools of thought on this thread. One, where people believe there is pronoun ambiguity and the other, where people believe there is none. I have gone though all the posts here, but it seems that a lot of people are still not clear on this. It would be great to have a "Back to the basics" understanding of this. GMATNinja - Would really appreciate your views on this as well.

My initial understanding was that, if there is No ambiguity then the sentence could read as under, making it correct.
"to set dividends more conservatively than they were setting them"

But I am guessing this cant work, because "Setting" is not parallel to "set"? Is that correct?

Also, if the sentence points to "dividends" which it intuitively seems to does, it could be written as:
"to set dividends more conservatively than they were being set"

But of course, the above cant work if we assume there is pronoun ambiguity OR if we assume that there is no ambiguity and the pronoun refers to "automakers".


sayantanc2k
AR15J
I read all the explanation, but I still could not understand why choice B is incorrect? Ellipses are not preferred when we have another correct choice that seems to be wordy?

In option A and B, the pronoun "they" refers to "automakers" (NOT "dividends") by virtue of parallelism*.

[*If there are two antecedents of a pronoun which is the subject of a clause, then the subject pronoun refers to subject noun in another clause in the sentence (rather than a non-subject noun).]
Show more

Thanks. That's a useful explanation. I do wonder, if anyone can elaborate, how "Automobile manufacturers" are the subject of the previous clause though?

If the previous clause is "severe industry analysts expect automakers" - The subject would be "Industry analysts". I am assuming "automakers - X - to set" cant be a clause, as "to set" cannot be a verb (To-verb).

Would appreciate any help on this. I am still looking for a really solid answer on why there is no pronoun ambiguity in this sentence.

Thanks
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,784
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,784
 [1]
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 06 Jul 2020, 09:29
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TargetMBA007
daagh
In this issue, whatever the structure, the pronoun they can refer only to automakers. It is only they who can set dividends for their companies and not the analysts nor any other plural words such as dividends. So we can rest at store all doubts about the pronoun reference.

More importantly the underlying principle here as a previous writer has pointed out, is the rule of ellipsis that disqualifies the choices A and B.

(A) to set dividends more conservatively than they were( in setting dividends )
(B) to set dividends more conservatively than they have been ( in setting dividends)


Thanks Daagh,

It would be great if you can expand on why there is no pronoun ambiguity in this as it seems there are two schools of thought on this thread. One, where people believe there is pronoun ambiguity and the other, where people believe there is none. I have gone though all the posts here, but it seems that a lot of people are still not clear on this. It would be great to have a "Back to the basics" understanding of this. GMATNinja - Would really appreciate your views on this as well.

My initial understanding was that, if there is No ambiguity then the sentence could read as under, making it correct.
"to set dividends more conservatively than they were setting them"

But I am guessing this cant work, because "Setting" is not parallel to "set"? Is that correct?

Also, if the sentence points to "dividends" which it intuitively seems to does, it could be written as:
"to set dividends more conservatively than they were being set"

But of course, the above cant work if we assume there is pronoun ambiguity OR if we assume that there is no ambiguity and the pronoun refers to "automakers".

sayantanc2k
AR15J
I read all the explanation, but I still could not understand why choice B is incorrect? Ellipses are not preferred when we have another correct choice that seems to be wordy?

In option A and B, the pronoun "they" refers to "automakers" (NOT "dividends") by virtue of parallelism*.

[*If there are two antecedents of a pronoun which is the subject of a clause, then the subject pronoun refers to subject noun in another clause in the sentence (rather than a non-subject noun).]

Thanks. That's a useful explanation. I do wonder, if anyone can elaborate, how "Automobile manufacturers" are the subject of the previous clause though?

If the previous clause is "severe industry analysts expect automakers" - The subject would be "Industry analysts". I am assuming "automakers - X - to set" cant be a clause, as "to set" cannot be a verb (To-verb).

Would appreciate any help on this. I am still looking for a really solid answer on why there is no pronoun ambiguity in this sentence.

Thanks
Show more
Looking at the correct choice (C), there are indeed several plural nouns that come before the pronoun "they". But which of those things can be "more conservative in setting dividends"?

The only logical choice is "automakers". After all, it's the automobile companies that have common stocks, so those companies (aka the "automakers") are the ones who will set the dividends, not industry analysts. Is the pronoun "they" ambiguous in choice (C)? Maybe a little. But it's pretty easy to figure out what "they" refers to.

Unfortunately, as described in this video, there are no black and white rules regarding pronoun ambiguity. So rather than looking at each sentence in a bubble and trying to decide whether the pronouns are ambiguous or not, you're better off comparing the options.

Which choice(s) is/are the least ambiguous? Does a pronoun have a single logical antecedent in one option but multiple logical antecedents in the others? Which option(s) make(s) the meaning the clearest?

Remember, you are looking for the BEST answer choice out of the five available options -- not necessarily a perfect option. I know that's not a very satisfying response, but sadly the GMAT doesn't usually make things nice and simple for us. :)

I hope that helps!
User avatar
NandishSS
User avatar
Joined: 06 Jan 2015
Last visit: 28 Jan 2021
Posts: 720
Own Kudos:
1,721
Given Kudos: 579
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Finance
GPA: 3.35
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Posts: 720
Kudos: 1,721
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 29 Aug 2020, 00:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled automobile companies’ common stocks to new highs, several industry analysts expect automakers, in order to conserve cash, to set dividends more conservatively than they were.


(A) to set dividends more conservatively than they were

(B) to set dividends more conservatively than they have been

(C) to be more conservative than they have been in setting dividends

(D) that they will be more conservative than they were in setting dividends

(E) that they will be more conservative than they have been to set dividends
Show more

HI AndrewN, GMATCoachBen, generis

Can you help me with this problem? I read the whole thread but I'm not clear about the issues...

(A) to set dividends more conservatively than they were [to set ]

(B) to set dividends more conservatively than they have been [to set ]
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,511
 [2]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,511
 [2]
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 29 Aug 2020, 06:22
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
NandishSS
Quote:
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled automobile companies’ common stocks to new highs, several industry analysts expect automakers, in order to conserve cash, to set dividends more conservatively than they were.


(A) to set dividends more conservatively than they were

(B) to set dividends more conservatively than they have been

(C) to be more conservative than they have been in setting dividends

(D) that they will be more conservative than they were in setting dividends

(E) that they will be more conservative than they have been to set dividends

HI AndrewN, GMATCoachBen, generis

Can you help me with this problem? I read the whole thread but I'm not clear about the issues...

(A) to set dividends more conservatively than they were [to set ]

(B) to set dividends more conservatively than they have been [to set ]
Show more
Hello, NandishSS. The first split, between to or that, should be clear from the structure of the sentence: analysts expect automakers to do something, not expect automakers that something. Note that expect that would be fine, but placing a noun between the two words skews the structure and meaning. Choices (D) and (E) are out within seconds. Choices (A) and (B) suffer from pronoun ambiguity in their use of they. Exploring the different lines of the original sentence for modeling purposes, you can propose more than one interpretation:

1) analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than automakers were previously setting them

2) analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than dividends were set previously

Choice (C) avoids this lack of clarity by indicating a doer of the action—they at the end of that option can only refer to a group of people, since it is people who set dividends. That is really all it comes down to in this one. There is little else to analyze.

I hope that helps. Thank you for bringing my attention to the question.

- Andrew
avatar
imnishitraj
avatar
Joined: 04 Apr 2020
Last visit: 28 Aug 2023
Posts: 3
Given Kudos: 8
GMAT 1: 650 Q48 V33
WE:Other (Consumer Packaged Goods)
GMAT 1: 650 Q48 V33
Posts: 3
Kudos: 0
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 29 Mar 2021, 21:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Want to understand the elimination reason for D&E. Didn't understand Daagh's explanation.
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
 [2]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
 [2]
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 30 Mar 2021, 00:08
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
imnishitraj
Want to understand the elimination reason for D&E. Didn't understand Daagh's explanation.
Show more
Hi imnishitraj, we can either say:

...analysts expect automakers to be more conservative

Or

...analysts expect that automakers will be more conservative

But following is incorrect:

...analysts expect automakers that they will be more conservative
- You could view this as unidiomatic.
avatar
750orNothing
avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2020
Last visit: 25 Jun 2021
Posts: 4
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 4
Kudos: 1
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 08 May 2021, 20:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi everyone,

If answer B were written

1) to set dividends more conservatively than dividends have been

Will that be correct? Can we use ellipsis to figure the answer means "dividends have been [set]"?

If ellipsis cannot to be use will answer B written the follow way be correct? Is the comparison clear?

2) to set dividends more conservatively than dividends have been set
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 10 May 2021, 03:24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
750orNothing
If ellipsis cannot to be use will answer B written the follow way be correct? Is the comparison clear?

2) to set dividends more conservatively than dividends have been set
Show more
Hi 750orNothing, at the very least, this would be incorrect because the passive voice dividends have been set does not tell us who has set dividends.
avatar
adityavinitdixit
avatar
Joined: 19 May 2021
Last visit: 08 Oct 2021
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 129
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au Updated on: 24 Jul 2021, 01:25
Originally posted by adityavinitdixit on 23 Jul 2021, 08:29.
Last edited by adityavinitdixit on 24 Jul 2021, 01:25, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The Question uses the subjunctive 'expect', so, why is the use of 'that' Incorrect in option D ?
Is it Incorrect because of the usage of 'will' with 'that'
Or
is the usage of "that" correct, but option (D) is Incorrect for a different reason?
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts