Last visit was: 27 Sep 2026, 00:49 It is currently 27 Sep 2026, 00:49
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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   
User avatar
mSKR
User avatar
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,202
Own Kudos:
970
 [1]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,202
Kudos: 970
 [1]
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 23 Jul 2021, 18:20
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
adityavinitdixit
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?
Show more

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


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
User avatar
jrk23
User avatar
Joined: 26 Sep 2017
Last visit: 29 Oct 2021
Posts: 293
Own Kudos:
82
 [1]
Given Kudos: 29
Posts: 293
Kudos: 82
 [1]
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 24 Jul 2021, 07:23
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
Imo, there is no ambiguity about the pronoun – they - in any of the choices. Dividends cannot set dividends upon themselves. Nor for that matter no other plural noun can stand in competition with the subject of the sub- clause namely—automakers – for being the referent. In pronoun references, logic is more important than any other.

(A) to set dividends more conservatively than they were --- they were is wrong—it should be they did.
(B) to set dividends more conservatively than they have been ---- they have been is wrong ; it have been doing is the correct usage.
(C) to be more conservative than they have been in setting dividends --- correct choice
(D) that they will be more conservative than they were in setting dividends ---wrong because of the faulty idiom expect x that as already pointed out
(E) that they will be more conservative than they have been to set dividends--- same as in D
Show more

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
User avatar
ishanichauhan
User avatar
Joined: 28 Mar 2021
Last visit: 11 May 2023
Posts: 11
Own Kudos:
6
Given Kudos: 55
Location: India
Schools: Fuqua '25 (A$) Darden '25 (A$$$$) Tepper '25 (A$) Booth '25 (M$)
GPA: 3.76
Schools: Fuqua '25 (A$) Darden '25 (A$$$$) Tepper '25 (A$) Booth '25 (M$)
Posts: 11
Kudos: 6
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 30 Jul 2021, 02:32
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Why can't 'they' refer to analysts here?
My doubt is how this sentence doesn't have a pronoun error. Can someone elaborate this please?

Thanks in advance.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 25 Sep 2026
Posts: 7,399
Own Kudos:
71,730
Given Kudos: 2,204
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
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,399
Kudos: 71,730
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 09 Aug 2021, 14:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ishanichauhan
Why can't 'they' refer to analysts here?
My doubt is how this sentence doesn't have a pronoun error. Can someone elaborate this please?

Thanks in advance.
Show more
A bit of ambiguity for a given pronoun isn't a dealbreaker on SC questions. When assessing a pronoun, you just want to ensure that it refers to a noun that:

    1) is properly singular or plural, and
    2) makes sense in the context of the sentence.

If there are NO nouns that fit the above criteria, than you have a black-and-white pronoun error. If there are multiple nouns that fit the bill, on the other hand, that's not necessarily a problem.

When you encounter an option that has a bit of pronoun ambiguity, you should make note of it without eliminating that answer choice. Then, go through the other options to check for more definitive grammar issues. If you're still left with multiple answer choices at that point, then you can investigate the pronoun ambiguity. Is there one option that is less ambiguous than the others? Or are they all similarly ambiguous?

In this question, there are several nouns that "they" could refer to in ALL of the answer choices, but only one noun that actually makes sense in the answer choices. Because all of the options are in the same boat, you can't use pronoun ambiguity to make an elimination.

By contrast, check out this official question in which pronoun ambiguity IS helpful, because the correct answer choice beautifully clears up the ambiguity in some of the other options.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
Rukia
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2019
Last visit: 19 Dec 2023
Posts: 49
Own Kudos:
34
Given Kudos: 860
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 49
Kudos: 34
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 20 Sep 2021, 23:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jrk23
Quote:
Imo, there is no ambiguity about the pronoun – they - in any of the choices. Dividends cannot set dividends upon themselves. Nor for that matter no other plural noun can stand in competition with the subject of the sub- clause namely—automakers – for being the referent. In pronoun references, logic is more important than any other.

(A) to set dividends more conservatively than they were --- they were is wrong—it should be they did.
(B) to set dividends more conservatively than they have been ---- they have been is wrong ; it have been doing is the correct usage.
(C) to be more conservative than they have been in setting dividends --- correct choice
(D) that they will be more conservative than they were in setting dividends ---wrong because of the faulty idiom expect x that as already pointed out
(E) that they will be more conservative than they have been to set dividends--- same as in 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
Show more

I have this same question. Experts please help.
avatar
Vep22
avatar
Joined: 02 Aug 2020
Last visit: 25 Nov 2021
Posts: 12
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 12
Kudos: 0
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 23 Sep 2021, 11:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rsaraiya
Totally confused on this one... Why is A wrong again... and why B vs C??

Please help!!!

ongste
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

I was confused by this one!
Will post OA later :)
Show more


Hello, Please go by meaning. The Author wants the automakers to be conservative & not the dividends. Please read it with proper meanining. Hope it helps
User avatar
sid0791
User avatar
Joined: 09 Aug 2020
Last visit: 28 Feb 2024
Posts: 81
Own Kudos:
20
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 81
Kudos: 20
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 29 Sep 2021, 02:07
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
egmat
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.

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
Show more

Hi egmat,

How should we know, that we have to use the word "setting"?
As most of the option has been discarded because of this particular reason

Thanks & Regards
Sid
User avatar
DmitryFarberMPrep
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 31 Aug 2026
Posts: 3,002
Own Kudos:
8,675
 [1]
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,002
Kudos: 8,675
 [1]
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 29 Sep 2021, 14:31
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
sid0791
User avatar
Joined: 09 Aug 2020
Last visit: 28 Feb 2024
Posts: 81
Own Kudos:
20
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 81
Kudos: 20
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 03 Oct 2021, 02:26
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
DmitryFarber
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.
Show more

Thanks

DmitryFarber

Got it
avatar
arshagarwal
avatar
Joined: 07 Jun 2021
Last visit: 07 Aug 2026
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 315
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 17 Oct 2021, 12:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I have a different explanation to eliminate A and B, and I would really like an expert to confirm that. So, here goes:

A and B say "more conservatively than". Therefore, I think what follows "more conservatively than" should answer the question - "how automakers have been / were setting dividends". For ex, "more conservatively than the way automakers have been / were setting dividends". I am sure there is a more elegant way to answer the aforementioned question, but this should work.

Thus, I think even if option A/B were to read "to set dividends more conservatively than they have been / were in setting dividends", it would still be incorrect. Could someone please confirm this explanation?

Along similar lines, C says "to be more conservative than". Thus, what follows than should be "they have been / were". So, C is right.

Thanks in advance!
User avatar
Transponster
User avatar
Joined: 06 Mar 2018
Last visit: 10 May 2026
Posts: 46
Own Kudos:
41
Given Kudos: 59
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
Schools: HEC Sept 23 Intake (A) Said '24 (D) INSEAD Aug'23 intake (WL)
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
GMAT 2: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V35
Schools: HEC Sept 23 Intake (A) Said '24 (D) INSEAD Aug'23 intake (WL)
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V35
Posts: 46
Kudos: 41
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 05 Dec 2021, 19:20
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ongste
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

Still not convinced why C is preferred over B. GMATNinja can you please provide your expertise here. Thank you.
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 26 Sep 2026
Posts: 6,486
Own Kudos:
7,181
 [1]
Given Kudos: 64
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 6,486
Kudos: 7,181
 [1]
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 07 Dec 2021, 06:43
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Transponster
ongste
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

Still not convinced why C is preferred over B. GMATNinja can you please provide your expertise here. Thank you.
Show more

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
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 25 Sep 2026
Posts: 7,399
Own Kudos:
71,730
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,204
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
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,399
Kudos: 71,730
 [2]
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 10 Dec 2021, 16:05
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Transponster
Still not convinced why C is preferred over B. GMATNinja can you please provide your expertise here. Thank you.
Show more

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

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 have been.
Show more
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):

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 be more conservative than they have been in setting dividends.
Show more
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!
User avatar
Transponster
User avatar
Joined: 06 Mar 2018
Last visit: 10 May 2026
Posts: 46
Own Kudos:
41
Given Kudos: 59
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
Schools: HEC Sept 23 Intake (A) Said '24 (D) INSEAD Aug'23 intake (WL)
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
GMAT 2: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V35
Schools: HEC Sept 23 Intake (A) Said '24 (D) INSEAD Aug'23 intake (WL)
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V35
Posts: 46
Kudos: 41
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 11 Dec 2021, 08:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
Transponster
Still not convinced why C is preferred over B. GMATNinja can you please provide your expertise here. Thank you.

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

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 have been.
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):

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 be more conservative than they have been in setting dividends.
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!
Show more

That makes sense! Thank you GMATNinja
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,248
Own Kudos:
356
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,248
Kudos: 356
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au Updated on: 13 Dec 2021, 17:44
Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 13 Dec 2021, 17:21.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 13 Dec 2021, 17:44, edited 3 times in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATGuruNY
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.
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)
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
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.
Show more


Hi GMATGuruNY - i have 2 quick questions on this post.

Per the purple - you mention Case 1 and Case 2 (all 4 sentences) are logical interpretations.

I disagree about Case 1 (both choices) being a logical interpretation

Because whats in the brackets in case 1 [setting dividends] is not shown EXACTLY IN THE SAME FORM prior in the sentence. Thus, i thought both sentences in Case 1 are grammatically not possible in the world of ellipsis.

Doesn't [setting dividends] have to be shown EXACTLY IN THE SAME FORM prior to the sentence for Case 1 to be viable ?

Thus i thought only Case 2 was possible when going over Option A and Option B

In Case 2 - whats in the brackets [set] does show up in the same form earlier in the sentence (albeit in infinitive, i.e. in the blue font)

Thus, i thought the purple was wrong because there is ONLY ONE logical interpretation for Option A and Option B.(i.e. Case 2 interpretation specifically)
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,248
Own Kudos:
356
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,248
Kudos: 356
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 13 Dec 2021, 17:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ii) GMATGuruNY - Because option A and Option B only has 1 logical interpretation (Case 2)

GMATGuruNY


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].
Show more

Is there anything wrong in the case 2 interpretation specifically ?

I think perhaps while the comparison is grammatically okay in Case 2, it doesnt make sense to have the following two things compared (Apples to oranges comparison)

Comparison in Case 2 is between
Left hand) Analysts expectation for something to happen a certain way
vs
Right hand) Information about dividends specifically

I dont think these the Left hand side can be meaningfully compared to the right hand side (comparing apples to oranges)

Thoughts ?
User avatar
GMATGuruNY
User avatar
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 25 Sep 2026
Posts: 1,348
Own Kudos:
3,986
 [2]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,348
Kudos: 3,986
 [2]
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 14 Dec 2021, 13:55
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
ii) GMATGuruNY - Because option A and Option B only has 1 logical interpretation (Case 2)

GMATGuruNY


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].

Is there anything wrong in the case 2 interpretation specifically ?

I think perhaps while the comparison is grammatically okay in Case 2, it doesnt make sense to have the following two things compared (Apples to oranges comparison)

Comparison in Case 2 is between
Left hand) Analysts expectation for something to happen a certain way
vs
Right hand) Information about dividends specifically

I dont think these the Left hand side can be meaningfully compared to the right hand side (comparing apples to oranges)

Thoughts ?
Show more

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.
User avatar
avigutman
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Last visit: 27 Jun 2026
Posts: 1,285
Own Kudos:
922
 [1]
Given Kudos: 66
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Posts: 1,285
Kudos: 922
 [1]
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 26 Jan 2022, 07:13
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Video solution from Quant Reasoning:
Subscribe for more: https://www.youtube.com/QuantReasoning? ... irmation=1
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,248
Own Kudos:
356
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,248
Kudos: 356
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 26 Jan 2022, 09:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi GMATGuruNY - just focussing on option A only

You mention - the 'they' can have logically refer to dividends / automakers.

Don't you think the 'they' in option A can refer back to 'analysts', implying there are 3 referrants (not 2 referrants) for option A

Quote:
Option A
• Analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than [dividends were set]
• Analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than [automakers were setting dividends]
• Analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than [analysts were expecting automakers to set dividends]
Show more
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,248
Own Kudos:
356
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,248
Kudos: 356
Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled au 26 Jan 2022, 09:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATGuruNY

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.
Show more

Hi GMATGuruNY - just focussing on option A only

You mention - the 'they' in option A can have logically refer to dividends / automakers (hence the 2 cases you show above)

Don't you think the 'they' in option A can refer back to 'analysts' as well -- implying there are 3 cases (not 2 cases) for option A

Quote:
Option A
Case 1) Analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than [automakers were setting dividends]
Case 2) Analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than [dividends were set]
Case 3) Analysts expect automakers to set dividends more conservatively than [analysts were expecting automakers to set dividends]
Show more

Thoughs ?
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
705 posts