Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au

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

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.

The issue with (B) is that the meaning is confusing. Take another look:


I just can't make sense of this. Who's "they?" Is it dividends? The automakers? And "than they have been" what? Is it saying that dividends are more conservative than the dividends had been in the past? Is it saying that the automakers are more conservative than they used to be? It is isn't clear .

Contrast this with (C):


Now there's only one possible interpretation. I know someone has been conservative in setting dividends -- and the only logical option here is "the automakers." So the meaning is perfectly clear: "several industry analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than they SET dividends {at some other time}."

If (B) is confusing and (C) is crystal clear, (C) is our winner. Simple as that.

I hope that helps!

Case 1 in A:
Industry analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than the automakers were [setting dividends].
Case 2 in A:
Industry analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than the dividends were [set].

Semantically, Case 1 makes more sense than Case 2, since Case 1 compares how automakers act in one case to how they act in another case.
Grammatically, Case 2 is more justifiable, since the bracketed word in Case 2 appears earlier in the sentence.

While Case 1 is preferable semantically, Case 2 is preferable grammatically.
As a result, a reader cannot discern which meaning is intended.
Eliminate A.

The same reasoning can be applied to B.

Sorry how is B wrong?

Could someone also explain how B is wrong with regards to the parallism with the 'than'

As far as I'm concerned, B and C are equally ambiguous in their use of they. Not just gramatically logiically I feel like they are both equally ambiguous to their antecedents

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".




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

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!

industry analysts expect automakers -- what?

Reason1:
intention: to do something(A) OR expectation: some results to come out (D)

meaningwise: I expect you to go out.
or
i expect that ram will visit home

A. to do something -- the original intention with meaningwise
D. they wil be more conservative -->


minor Reason2:
tense wise:
(A) to set dividends more conservatively than they were
something was happening in past and from this moment : set dividents --no gap in timing

(D) that they will be more conservative than they were in setting dividends[/quote]
something was happening in past and then something in future" will" ---what about present till future?
why need to have a gap? when something can start from now on

this reason is not a big reason to reject but can consider in comparson A vs D. A is better in this aspect.


i hope reason1 is clear why A wins over D

Hello Sir,

just need to know- whether" were " should be more accurate in option "C" or "have been". Which option to chose if have both

sid0791

The word "setting" is actually not required. The trouble is that none of the choices with "set" are written correctly. It's fine to end the sentence with "to set dividends more conservatively." We could add "than they had before" or something like that, but that meaning is already implied, so those extra words aren't needed.

Hello Transponster,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can resolve your doubt.

Option B fails to maintain the correct present perfect continuous tense verb construction ("have + been + present participle - "verb+ing"), as it omits the present participle entirely; please remember, the correct present perfect continuous tense verb construction is ("have + been + present participle - "verb+ing" - "setting" in this case).

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

Video solution from Quant Reasoning:
Subscribe for more: https://www.youtube.com/QuantReasoning? ... irmation=1

A: Analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than they were.
Here, the purpose of more than is to compare the action in the blue portion to that in the red portion.
Analysts play no role in the blue portion.
For this reason, a reader will interpret that the pronoun in the red portion (they) is intended to refer to an antecedent plural noun in the blue portion (automakers or dividends).

Totally confused on this one... Why is A wrong again... and why B vs C??

Please help!!!

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.

I limited the answer to B or C and chose B.

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)

I am not understanding how the 'they' in C is any less ambiguous than in A or B

I would never have the ambiguity that people are seeing in A and B in this problem.

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?

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 !