GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 29 Mar 2020, 11:35

### 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

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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2829
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2018, 08:10
Shivikaa wrote:
I chose B. I always get confused by questions like these. What all topics do I need to practice more inorder to gain strength in these.

Option B has meaning issue. The grammar topics would not cover this issue. Following could be a way to handle such issues:

In the first step, take the base sentence (after eliminating modifiers etc.) and consider whether it makes sense - if OK, then as the second step add the modifiers and then check the meaning.

If you had considered option B the above way, you would have caught the meaning issue in the first step itself. Base sentence:
An executive makes missing or misinterpreting likely.
Not really - the executive does not make missing / misinterpreting likely - his commitment (to a course of action) does.
Manager
Joined: 17 Jan 2017
Posts: 89
GMAT 1: 540 Q42 V23
GPA: 3.85
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2018, 21:53
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.

is it the correct use of "Being" in option "D"....????
Plzzz explain..
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2983
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Apr 2018, 12:11
sajon wrote:
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.

is it the correct use of "Being" in option "D"....????
Plzzz explain..

Hello sajon,

I am not sure if your doubt still persists. Here is the answer nonetheless.

In Choice D, being has been used as a subject that takes the verb makes. This usage of being as a subject is considered correct on GMAT SC.

We see the same usage of being in the correct answer choice E too.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 06 Jun 2017
Posts: 21
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2018, 04:10
GMATNinja wrote:
This is one of the OG questions that causes the most trouble, partly because a lot of GMAT test-takers have an (occasionally incorrect) impulse to automatically eliminate any answer choice with the word "being."

But we'll get to that. Let's take these buggers in order:

Quote:
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.

That second "it" is the big problem here: "makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble..." I suppose that "it" could refer to "heavy commitment" or "course of action", but neither of those would make any sense. (A) is gone.

Quote:
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.

This is fairly subtle, but the subject doesn't make a whole lot of sense with the main verb here. "An executive... makes missing signs of incipient trouble... likely when they do appear." The pronoun "they" is OK, but it doesn't make logical sense to say that "an executive makes missing signs of trouble likely..." Also, I see no good reason use "ones" here -- in theory, "ones" would refer to very specific signs of trouble, and there's no good reason to use "ones" when a simple "them" would work. (B) is gone.

Quote:
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.

The "it" is a problem here: "it" generally refers to the nearest singular noun. In this case, "it" would seem to refer to "trouble," and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. "Course of action" would work, but that's much farther back in the sentence.

To be fair, ambiguous pronouns aren't always wrong on the GMAT, so if you want to be conservative, you could keep (C) for now. But as we'll see in a moment, (E) is a much better option.

Quote:
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.

"Them" is trying to refer back to a possessive pronoun, "executives'", and that's wrong on the GMAT. Non-possessive pronouns (they, them, he, she, it) can't refer back to possessive nouns on the GMAT. So (D) is gone.

Quote:
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.

There are lots of pronoun issues in the other answer choices, but we're all good with (E): the ambiguous "it" we saw in (C) isn't here at all, and "them" and "they" very clearly refer to "signs of incipient trouble." The subject "being heavily committed to a course of action" works nicely with the main verb phrase ("is likely to make an executive miss signs of trouble..."), so (E) is an upgrade from (B).

That leaves "being" as the only reasonable objection to (E). But "being" is absolutely fine here: it's just a noun, also known as a gerund in this case. "Being" is no different than any other gerund. So (E) is our answer.

Please see last Monday's Topic of the Week for more on gerunds and other "-ing" words on the GMAT: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 39780.html.

Hi GMATNinja

I came across one of your post where you have mentioned the usage of a special pronoun 'it' with respect to its 'standalone' usage.

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p49622

Please help me to understand the reference of "That second "it" is the big problem here: "makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble..." I suppose that "it" could refer to "heavy commitment" or "course of action", but neither of those would make any sense. (A) is gone" with respect to "The rain made it + quite challenging + to drive on the freeway".
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutors
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 3224
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jun 2018, 17:34
raunakme19 wrote:
Hi GMATNinja

I came across one of your post where you have mentioned the usage of a special pronoun 'it' with respect to its 'standalone' usage.

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p49622

Please help me to understand the reference of "That second "it" is the big problem here: "makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble..." I suppose that "it" could refer to "heavy commitment" or "course of action", but neither of those would make any sense. (A) is gone" with respect to "The rain made it + quite challenging + to drive on the freeway".

Hm, that link didn't come through -- and I've never posted anything on the Manhattan website. Maybe you're confusing me with somebody else? Ron Purewal, maybe? We do have similar GMAT scores...?

"Standalone" pronouns do exist, but they're pretty darned rare on the GMAT. "Standalone" pronouns have no referent, so they're also called non-referential pronouns, if you like jargon.

The thing is, standalone pronouns only make sense in very limited circumstances. Your example is fine: "The rain made it challenging to drive on the freeway." We're not saying that the rain is challenging for anybody in particular. The rain just "makes it challenging" in general -- not for any particular person or group of people.

That's not what's happening in this question at all: "Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action... makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble..." In this case, SOMEBODY has to actually miss the signs of incipient trouble, or else the sentence makes no sense. Logically, the "heavy commitment to a course of action" makes EXECUTIVES more likely to miss signs of incipient trouble. The pronoun actually needs a referent -- otherwise, the phrase doesn't convey the intended meaning.

So yes, it's true that some pronouns don't actually need a referent. But unless you're super-advanced in SC already, I don't recommend thinking about them at all. I can only think of one or two official SC questions that include "standalone" or "non-referential" pronouns, so they're not a major issue. But if you start to imagine that "normal" pronouns don't actually need a referent, that can cause all sorts of problems. More than 99% of pronouns on the GMAT require a referent, and the exceptions aren't worth worrying about too much.

I hope this helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutors @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: all videos by topic

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Director
Joined: 08 Jun 2013
Posts: 537
Location: France
GMAT 1: 200 Q1 V1
GPA: 3.82
WE: Consulting (Other)
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2018, 10:35
1
Video explanation :

https://gmat.magoosh.com/forum/3495-hea ... utive-to-a
_________________
Everything will fall into place…

There is perfect timing for
everything and everyone.
Never doubt, But Work on
improving yourself,
Keep the faith and
It will all make sense.
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 831
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2019, 12:08
1
Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one problem at at time, and narrow it down to the correct choice! To begin, let's take a closer look at the original question, and highlight any major differences we spot in orange:

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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

After a quick glance over the options, we have a few areas we can focus on. However, this is a question where the entire sentence is underlined, so we need to treat this differently than we do other questions! Whenever you see a question with the entire sentence underlined, there are a few areas you should pay attention to first to narrow down your options:

1. Modifiers
2. Parallelism
3. Meaning
4. Structure

Let's start with #3 on our list: meaning. There is also another glaring difference we see throughout each of the options: PRONOUNS! There are a LOT of pronouns in these sentences, so let's do a quick check to make sure all the pronouns have clear antecedents, and rule out any that don't:

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.

first "it" = refers to "course of action" --> OK
second "it" = doesn't refer to anything, so we call this a "dummy pronoun" --> WRONG
"them" = refers to "signs of incipient trouble" --> OK

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.

"one" = unclear; could refer to either "An executive" or "a course of action" --> WRONG
"ones" = misleading; changes meaning from referring to "signs of incipient trouble" to some other signs we haven't mentioned yet --> WRONG

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.

"they" = unclear; could refer to "An executive," "a course of action," or "signs of incipient trouble" --> WRONG
"it" = refers back to "a course of action" --> OK

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" = refers to "a course of action" --> OK
first "them" = refers to "Executives" --> WRONG (see below)
second "them" = refers to "signs" --> WRONG (see below)

So why are both "them" pronouns wrong? Because placing two of the same pronoun so close together is confusing to readers. It's too ambiguous which "them" is referring to which antecedent. Yes, you could do the hard work and figure it out, but reading shouldn't require the reader to do the heavy lifting.

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.

"one" = refers to "a course of action" --> OK
"them" = refers to "signs of incipient trouble" --> OK

Well there you have it - option E is the correct choice! It's the only sentence that used clear pronouns.

Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.
_________________
"Students study. GMAT assassins train."

The Course Used By GMAT Club Moderators To Earn 750+

souvik101990 Score: 760 Q50 V42 ★★★★★
ENGRTOMBA2018 Score: 750 Q49 V44 ★★★★★
Intern
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Posts: 3
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Apr 2019, 06:48
i eliminated E , based on comma-subject rule. "Being heavily committed to a course of action, executives......" isn't this the correct form?

Can anyone please shed some light on this.
Retired Moderator
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5410
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Apr 2019, 07:21
1
Top Contributor
Any verb+ing such as 'singing or 'sleeping' that starts a sentence and followed by its doer and its subject is indeed proper modification and is accepted as grammatical except in the case of 'being'. In the case of 'being' that is used as a participle and modifier, the usage is said to be bad in style, redundant and taboo.

However, 'being' used as a part of progressive tense along with another helping verb such as 'is being', or 'are being' is ok. In addition, 'being' used as a gerund in a subject phrase and immediately followed by its verb is also ok.

The takeaway: 'Being' used as part of 'a subject' or ' a verb' is ok, but as a 'participle' or ' modifier' it is not okay.
_________________
One-to-one video private sessions on SC +91 98845 44509, <newnaren@gmail.com>
CEO
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 3150
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Apr 2019, 07:37
1
susmitha2110 wrote:
i eliminated E , based on comma-subject rule. "Being heavily committed to a course of action, executives......" isn't this the correct form?

Can anyone please shed some light on this.
I'm not sure what the "comma-subject rule" is, but here the being is actually the subject of the sentence.

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.
_________________
Director
Joined: 22 Feb 2018
Posts: 591
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 May 2019, 06:01
daagh wrote:
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. ---- Especially if it--- What does - it - denote? Commitment or action? Ambiguity –Antecedent and meaning of second - it - is also suspect. What does it likely make to miss signs?

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. ---- How to make missing signs – really funny.

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. --- The choice first says – signs and they – a plural noun and pronoun and in the next breath calls it in the singular- it -

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. ---Executives’ being – rather awkward; No proper antecedent for them; first them must refer to executives, which is not there and the second – them- by logic should refer to the signs. A pronoun having two referents is ungrammatical

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. __- being as part of a subject phrase is acceptable since we cannot form the subject without the being. Being is taboo, only when it is superfluous and dispensable.

E is the king.

Hello,

Can anyone please correct my understanding regarding rule of modifier (with respect to this question), which is mentioned below,

Ing- modifer............, Subject/noun................
e.g. Being an american, i enjoyed a lot of privileges in canada.

So, as per modifier rule, option E was first to be ruled out.

Thanks in anticipation!
CEO
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 3150
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 May 2019, 17:26
Raxit85 wrote:
Hello,

Can anyone please correct my understanding regarding rule of modifier (with respect to this question), which is mentioned below,

Ing- modifer............, Subject/noun................
e.g. Being an american, i enjoyed a lot of privileges in canada.

So, as per modifier rule, option E was first to be ruled out.

Thanks in anticipation!
The usage of being in the sentence you came up with is not impossible. That is, we should probably not use it in a "first to be ruled out" way.

The bigger point, however, is that in your sentence, being is a modifier, but in this question, being forms the subject of the sentence (option 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.[/quote]
_________________
Director
Joined: 22 Feb 2018
Posts: 591
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 May 2019, 23:42
AjiteshArun wrote:
Raxit85 wrote:
Hello,

Can anyone please correct my understanding regarding rule of modifier (with respect to this question), which is mentioned below,

Ing- modifer............, Subject/noun................
e.g. Being an american, i enjoyed a lot of privileges in canada.

So, as per modifier rule, option E was first to be ruled out.

Thanks in anticipation!
The usage of being in the sentence you came up with is not impossible. That is, we should probably not use it in a "first to be ruled out" way.

The bigger point, however, is that in your sentence, being is a modifier, but in this question, being forms the subject of the sentence (option 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.
[/quote]

What if i think in the below way,,
Who is heavily committed to a course of action? Then, name of person should come immediately after the comma.

Even though being acts as gerund in this example, how can one identify it as gerund? (According to me, answer to the what question is gerund; e.g. Smoking is injurious to the health. -- What is injurious to the health ? Answer to the question is -ing form, so it's gerund.)
CEO
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 3150
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 May 2019, 10:07
Raxit85 wrote:
What if i think in the below way,,
Who is heavily committed to a course of action? Then, name of person should come immediately after the comma.

Even though being acts as gerund in this example, how can one identify it as gerund? (According to me, answer to the what question is gerund; e.g. Smoking is injurious to the health. -- What is injurious to the health ? Answer to the question is -ing form, so it's gerund.)
That concept applies to the use of being as a (certain type of) modifier. In this case, it is not a modifier (it is the subject of the sentence). This means that we are not concerned about a who for the being. Instead, this being is used to communicate ~state. For example:

1. Being prepared is important.
2. Being too critical of the government may not be a good idea.

We can see that there is no "who" needed in either sentence.
_________________
Director
Joined: 22 Feb 2018
Posts: 591
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 May 2019, 22:09
AjiteshArun wrote:
Raxit85 wrote:
What if i think in the below way,,
Who is heavily committed to a course of action? Then, name of person should come immediately after the comma.

Even though being acts as gerund in this example, how can one identify it as gerund? (According to me, answer to the what question is gerund; e.g. Smoking is injurious to the health. -- What is injurious to the health ? Answer to the question is -ing form, so it's gerund.)
That concept applies to the use of being as a (certain type of) modifier. In this case, it is not a modifier (it is the subject of the sentence). This means that we are not concerned about a who for the being. Instead, this being is used to communicate ~state. For example:

1. Being prepared is important.
2. Being too critical of the government may not be a good idea.

We can see that there is no "who" needed in either sentence.

Thanks for prompt response.

But how can one easily identify that -ing form (at the very beginning of the sentence) works as a gerund or modifier??
CEO
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 3150
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2019, 18:56
1
Raxit85 wrote:
Thanks for prompt response.

But how can one easily identify that -ing form (at the very beginning of the sentence) works as a gerund or modifier??
We could identify the main verb and then take a call on what its subject is. Some patterns we could watch out for:

1. Being, clause ← This being could be the type of modifier (participle) at the very beginning of the sentence that needs the logical noun after the comma.

2. Being verb ← But if we don't have a comma, the being could be the subject of the sentence.

3. Being, modifier, verb ← When we have a modifier in between two commas, those commas don't exist as far as the being and the verb are concerned (Being, modifier, verb), so (3) is just a variation of (2).
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Posts: 355
GMAT 1: 610 Q43 V31
GMAT 2: 640 Q45 V32
GMAT 3: 640 Q47 V31
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Feb 2020, 17:50
Hi GMATNinja, I would like to challenge your explanation of why (D) is wrong. It turns out that subject / object pronouns (them, they, it, etc.) can refer back to possessive pronouns and there are quite a few OG questions that illustrate the situation. Please have a look at the post by generis:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/recent-studi ... l#p2116833

Subjectively, (D) is wrong because of a similar reason that makes (B) wrong.
"Executives’ being heavily committed to [blah-blah], makes them ..." - this piece just does not make any logical sense.

Director
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 985
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2020, 08:29
"if it worked well in the past" is wrong here. so choice C and D are out

choice E is correct . we learn a point from choice E.

when a characteristic which affects an object is in grammatical subject role, no possessive is require.

the mass will dertermine whether a star becomes a dwart or a black hole.

in there we do not use "star"'s mass.
CrackVerbal Representative
Joined: 11 Sep 2019
Posts: 117
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2020, 23:11
A. Who will miss those signs? Not clear. The two "it"s refer to two different things. 1st = course of action. 2nd = placeholder.

B. this sentence reads - "an executive ... makes ... missing signs of trouble likely" - clearly illogical. "ones" is incorrect. We need "them". The pronoun "one" can only refer to a subset of the noun to which it refers, not the entire thing.

C. "especially if it " is too far away from "course of action" and thus is inferior to the placement in option E.

D. The pronoun 'them' has no antecedent. It cannot refer to the possessive noun executives'. "miss signs" and "misinterpreting them" are not parallel.

E. is the best option!

Hope this helps!
_________________
Re: Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if   [#permalink] 17 Mar 2020, 23:11

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   [ 79 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by