Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if

GMATNinja, as far as the explanation in option D is concerned, I believe the following official example makes an exception to this rule.

Emily Dickinson’s letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan’s marriage to Emily’s brother and ending shortly before Emily’s death in 1886, outnumbering her letters to anyone else.

So should we not consider this as an absolute rule?

Yup, our understanding of that "rule" has definitely changed! Check out this post for a discussion of this issue and another explanation of (D).

I just have two issues in E (though it is the best in the lot):
1- Being is used in modifier (which I read in the forum is always wrong)
2- Being should be followed by "Executive" and not "especially one that"

Can someone please tell me where am I going wrong?

The idea that the use of "being" is always incorrect is not quite right.

That idea comes from the fact that SC question writers have in some cases used "being" in illogical ways to create incorrect choices, but it's not always incorrect to use "being."

In this case, "being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past" is the subject of the sentence.

The point of the sentence is that "being heavily committed" in a certain way "is likely to make" something occur.

That meaning is logical. So, the use of "being" makes sense in this case.

Since, as I said above, "being" is the subject of the sentence, not a modifier, "being" does not have to be followed by "executive."

Notice that, in "Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past," "especially one that has worked well in the past" simply modifies "course of action."

I have a question in choice E.
I understand that this is the right answer/.
I want to understand what does "them" in "misinterpret them" represent? Does it represent signs or trouble?

The plural pronoun "them" refers to the plural noun "signs," or alternatively, we could say that "them" refers to the plural "signs of trouble."

Can 'it' refer back to a situation or an act? I believe 'it' can only refer to a noun.

Hi GMAT Ninja,

I'm super confused on the bold part below

(E) Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

Since the subject is "an executive", isn't the correct verb should be "misses"?

Thanks

Hi aproposof,

We can use an object followed by a bare infinitive (the plain form a verb, without a to) after certain verbs like make, watch, and see.

1. X makes Y miss Z.
2. X watched Y miss Z.
3. X saw Y miss Z.

Miss, as it is used in all these examples, is the plain (simplest) form of a verb. It's not a complete verb, and won't change form even if Y is singular.

4. X wants Y to miss Z.

In (4), we see a full infinitive (plain form with a to). That's just how the verb want works. But make is different. We can't say X made Y to miss Z. It must be X made Y miss Z.

Hi AjiteshArun

It's very helpful

Thank you much!

Hi experts GMATNinja IanStewart AjiteshArun

I've checked all the previous post in this thread but have one doubt for the correct answer (E) that no post addressed. So I decided to write my own post and hope that you could share some of your thoughts when you have time.

I selected the option (E), but I do not know why the use of present perfect tense in (E) is correct.

E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

Many text books (for GMAT and for regular English education) have pointed out that the present perfect tense is used to show either an action that started at a moment in the past and continues at present or a completed action that has a continued effect relevant to the present moment. Two examples would be "The inflation has risen since January" and "The Fed has raised the benchmark rates."

According to these text books, if the present perfect tense is used with a time phrase, the time phrase should include the present moment, such as "since (a time point)," "for (a time period)." A time phrase that includes only the past moment should not be used with the present perfect tense, such as "last year" or "in 2020." Cambridge Dictionary also gives similar advice: https://reurl.cc/XjmKQa.

The way the present perfect tense is used in (E) is strongly against these suggestions. I am not saying that (E) should not be the correct option, since it delivers the intended meaning most accurately among the five options. But (E)'s use of present perfect tense confuses me. I don't mean that these text books must be correct, and I am also aware that GMAT is not a grammar test, but I wonder whether it is really acceptable to use the present perfect tense with a time phrase only including the past moment.

SC is a meaning test, but the use of the present perfect tense in (E) does not give me a clear meaning--why does not the option (E) just say "especially one that worked well in the past"? What is the benefit of using the present perfect tense?

I usually do not use verb tense to elimination options, or I might directly cross of all options except for (B), the only one option using the simple past tense in "especially one that worked in the past." But (B) has a meaning error in that it means the executive himself or herself makes missing trouble signs possible. So in the end, I did select (E), half-heartedly.

Could you share some of your thoughts on the present perfect tense?
If next time, another option in another SC question adopts such use, would you advise me to tolerate it and check other issues?

Thank you so much!

Hi GraceSCKao,

I'll put my thoughts down below.

This is broadly correct. The present perfect is used for (a) something in the indefinite past, (b) something that started in the past and is still going on, or (c) something that covers an entire duration of time before now. It's a good fit when the the author or speaker is concerned more about now than the past.

This is also correct. The "indefinite" in "indefinite past" means that we can't be very precise about exactly when something happened. If we want to specify a past time, we shouldn't use the present perfect. However, keep in mind that in the past isn't a precise time marker. This means that we can say something like "Inflation has been a problem in the past" (we can't be super precise though, so "Inflation has been a problem in 1972" is not correct).

We can use the present perfect for the past, as long as we don't specify the (precise) time. If we don't specify the time at all, it's usually understood that we're referring to some period of time before now that includes the thing we're discussing.

This is not an easy question to answer, and we shouldn't get into the present perfect vs. simple past debate. Instead, I'll focus on what I consider to be the most important advantages of using the present perfect in E.

1. The present perfect helps us focus on now, rather than the past.

Consider a sentence like this:
1a. Why should you get the role when you haven't even taken part in a school play?

And compare it with this one:
1b. Why should you get the role when you didn't even take part in a school play?

(1a) keeps us focused on the present, whereas (1b) forces a shift to the past and seems to change the meaning to ~a decision (as opposed to ~a state). In this case, (1a) is the most likely intended meaning.

2. The present perfect is less likely to lead to a "one-time" interpretation.

"Why did you choose this course of action?"
2a. Because it has worked well in the past.
2b. Because it worked well in the past.

(2a) gives us the impression that this is something that has been tried (with success) multiple times in the past, whereas (2b) is slightly ambiguous. Did it work well once? Or did it work well generally? Also, as in (1), we can see that (2b) seems a little distant, as if we're talking about something we haven't used in some time. So we know that something worked well in the past, but does it work well now? Because (2b) is a little more "distant" than (2a), it is less effective at giving the reader the impression that this is something that can still be expected to work well.

Yes. We should always prioritise easy (and reliable) calls.

Thank you AjiteshArun so much for your prompt response and clear explanations!

I could see it now--"in the past" conveys an indefinite moment in the past, so it does not need to be treated in the same way as the definite past moment, such as "in 2020." I think I could ignore it when it is used with a present perfect tense, since this tense, without a clear time phrase, is also often used to convey the idea that something happened in the past.

1. I've lived in the city for 10 years.
=>I began living in this city 10 years ago and I still live in the city now.

2. I've lived in the city.
=>I do not live in the city anymore, but the fact that I once lived in the city is somehow relevant to the discussion at the present moment.

3. I've lived in the city in the past.
=> I did not think that this structure could be viable, but now I see that it conveys the same meaning as the preceding one.

4. I lived in the city in 2020.
=>I lived in the city at a definite past moment. I do not live in the city anymore.

5. I lived in the city for 10 years.
=>I started living in the city at a moment in the past, and I did so for 10 years. But I do not live in the city anymore.


I think that there is a delicate line between the use of present perfect tense (without a time phrase) and the use of simple past tense, a line that I cannot easily spot. Although both convey the idea that something happened in the past, the messages are subtly different, as shown in the difference between "I've lived in the city" and "I lived in the city."


Thank you for your detailed explanations!

I personally think that it is hard to grasp the line between the simple past tense and the present perfect tense. Maybe one day I can grasp it as my exposure to English increases over time. I will keep your explanations in mind. And, thanks for your suggestions--I will concentrate on other concrete issues first.

Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

Test: Pronoun, Noun modifier
A. Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
-> "it" is referred to 2 different nouns

B. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.
-> Bad structure

C. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past.
-> Unclear on what "it" is modifying

D. Executives' being heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear.
=> "It" unclear antecedent. "Them": no antecedent

E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
=> Correct

OG16 SC110

For Choice E, "Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear." I was struggling to understand how "an executive" can be so far away from the -ing modifier at the beginning of the sentence. I thought there was a rule that you need to have the noun that the sub clause or absolute phrase is modifying as close as possible to the sub clause or absolute phrase.

I realize that you are not supposed to rewrite GMAT correct answers to try to make them correct, but this is what I would think the correct answer would look like:
"Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, AN EXECUTIVE is likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear."

I see that you need the "especially one that has worked well in the past" to be close to "course of action" because it directly modifies "course of action", but then in my view "an executive" should come directly after the comma.

Thank you for your time and help.

That construction doesn't have to obey modifier rules because that construction isn't a modifier.

In this version of the sentence, "Being..." (a 'gerund' = _ING-as-noun, like "swimming" in the sentence Swimming is fun) is the main subject. "Is" (in front of "likely", is the main verb.

Hello woohoo921,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, in Option E "Being..." is not actually a modifier acting on the noun "an executive".

Rather, "Being", in Option E, is a gerund - a present participle ("verb+ing") that acts as a noun, making "Being heavily committed to a course of action" a noun phrase that is acted upon by the verb phrase "is likely to make an executive miss signs...".

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