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

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:



"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.



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.

GMATNinja- thank you for your response. Just to clarify: in D, the possessive part is also just wrong even ignoring that "them" can't refer to it. As in, there doesn't appear to be anything that should be possessive, so it's just wrong on its own, right? thanks!

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.

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.

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..

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:



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.



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.



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.



"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.



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.

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!

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.

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.

Hello,
I am still not sure why C is incorrect. I understand E is also correct. I have been advised to take the meaning and logical based approach for SC. In this sentence, in option C, "it" can logically only refer back to the action and "it" can not logically refer to the "trouble".
"especially if the trouble has worked well in the past" does not logically make sense. Can someone help.
Thanks

Heavy commitment is the subject here.

Right: She made it possible for us to attend the movie.

It + is often difficult + to distinguish between a past-tense verb and a past participle.

The rain made it + quite challenging + to drive on the freeway.