Quote:
Economic theory fails to explain the extent
to which savings from personal income has shifted to short term bonds, money-market funds, and other near term investments by the instability in the futures market.
A. to which
savings from personal income
has shifted
S/V disagreementB. of
savings from personal income that
has been shifted
S/V disagreementC. of savings from personal income
shiftingA present participle (a verbING) without a comma modifies the immediately preceding noun.
Income is not shifting from investment area to investment area. Savings are shifting.-- hard: even if (C) were "of savings shifting" it would not be correct.
Extent OF requires a prepositional object that is a noun phrase. Either
(1) . . . extent of savings' [possessive savings!] shifting to short term bonds, money market funds . . .
or
(2) . . . extent of savings having shifted to short term bonds, money market funds . . .
Both 1 and 2 are rare. Neither is as good as the construction in (E).
D. to which
savings from personal income
have shifted to X, Y, and z
by the instability of . . .
Active voice.
Instability [in the futures market] cannot itself shift human beings' savings
out of that market and into other investment areas.E. to which savings from personal income have been shifted
Correct. Passive voice. Savings . . . have been shifted to X, Y, and Z BY the instability of ABC.Rakeshtewatia
can someone please elaborate the concept tested in answer choice "e".
Thanks in advance

applebear
Hello,
I could not understand why the answer is E. I did not understand the concept that is being tested here as well. Please help me out with this question. I'd be grateful.
Rakeshtewatia and
applebear , this sentence is dense.
It tests a number of issues, but the most important issue
is active versus passive voice.
Too often test-takers assume immediately that active is better than passive voice.
Be careful with the preference for active voice.
Sometimes it is better to use passive voice.
In this case, passive voice is better because the causal agent
is an inanimate thing. Things such as instability do not shift money. People do.
The question tests these concepts:• Subject/verb agreement in (A) and (B)
"Savings" is plural. The verb must be plural.
• present participial modifiers [verbING] in option C
Shifting should modify
savings.
Shifting incorrectly modifies
income.
•
whether we can recognize the instances in which
we should use passive voice.Option D suggests that inanimate instability
itself can shift money
from one market to another.
Instability cannot shift money anywhere.
People shift money.
In such cases, we should use the passive voice.
• Use passive voice to downplay agency. Use present perfect to talk about a recent event that is relevant in the presentOption E correctly uses the
present perfect in the
passive voice PRESENT PERFECT, constructionPresent perfect, ACTIVE: have + past participle
Present perfect PASSIVE: have + been + past participle
• What does this sentence mean?People invested their savings in the futures market.
At some point, that futures market became unstable.
At the time this statement was written (recent), the instability of the futures market
"caused" savings to be shifted from the futures market to
short term bonds, money-market funds, and other near-term investments.
The shift of money invested (from futures to other investments) was a big shift.
The sentence implies that although it is logical for people to move their invested money
out of unstable markets,
this shift was huge—
and economic theory cannot account for the
magnitude of the shift.
Magnitude is a synonym for
extent.• Active vs passive voiceWho decides to change investment strategies? People.
Active voiceThis sentence, which I write in the active voice, reflects that fact:
Although the instability of the futures market makes people nervous enough to shift some money out of futures,
the great extent to which people have shifted their invested savings from futures to short-term bonds,
money-market funds, and other near-term investments cannot be explained by economic theory.In
that sentence,
people are the agents of change. People are the active doers.
Can the
instability of the futures market
itself shift money from one market to other markets?
No.
Can that instability itself decide that the shift of money away from futures and to other investments will be a large shift?
No.
Passive voiceWe use passive voice when we want to de-emphasize the doer and causation.
The votes were counted by 6 a.m. the next morning.We use passive voice when we do not know who or what the doer is.
Sometimes our fears are misunderstood.We use passive voice when the doer is not human but the "done to" [the savings] requires human or animate agency and there are only inanimate
things in the sentence.
She was compelled to check every luggage carousel by the broken monitors.(Monitors, broken or not, cannot compel a person to do anything. So we say that she WAS compelled to check every carousel BY the fact that the monitors were broken.
It is just a nuance of English that when we write in the passive voice in this context, we acknowledge that the inanimate thing did have an effect, but was not an active, intentional, or
live doer.)
Correct: Economic theory cannot explain the [large] extent to which invested savings have been shifted to X, Y, and Z by
[BECAUSE OF] the instability of the futures market.I just posted a question involving this issue for
Project SC Butler.That question is
here.
Answer E correctly uses the passive voice to describe a situation wherein
1) futures markets in which people have invested savings are unstable, a fact that leads to #2;
2) funds have been moved to better investment areas; and
3) economic theory cannot account for the apparently great or large extent of that shift in funds.
I hope that analysis helps.