Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi

should be (D)

Since 1986, when the Department of Labor began to allow investment officers' fees to be based on how the
funds they manage perform, several corporations began paying their investment advisers a small basic fee,
with a contract promising higher fees if the managers perform well.

(A) investment officers’ fees to be based on how the funds they manage perform, several corporations began - "they" has no referent

(B) investment officers’ fees to be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations began - "they" has no referent

(C) that fees of investment officers be based on how the funds they manage perform, several corporations
have begun - very awkward

(D) fees of investment officers to be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations have begun

(E) that investment officers' fees be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations began - "they" has no referent

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-



Choice A: This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb "began", although the present perfect verb "have begun" is appropriate here. Additionally, this answer choice uses the subject pronoun "they" to refer to the possessive noun "officer's fees". Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.

Choice B: This answer choice displays the same errors seen in Option A. Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.

Choice C: This answer choice displays no grammatical errors; however, the use of the passive voice renders it quite wordy and awkward. Thus, while it is not incorrect, this answer choice is not a very good one.

Choice D: This answer choice maintains proper tense and pronoun use and is quite concise. Thus, this answer choice is correct.

Choice E: This answer choice displays the same errors seen in Options A and B. Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

One important thing to note here is that the phrase "since 1986" makes it completely clear that the present perfect tense must be used; this tense is used to refer to actions that ended in the past but continue to have an effect in the present. In this case, the action is the act of beginning the corporations' new practice; the adoption of this practice concluded in the past but since the practice continues to this day, this adoption continues to affect the present.

To understand the concept of "Present Perfect Tense on GMAT", you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment officers' fees to be based on how the funds they manage perform, several corporations began paying their investment advisers a small basic fee, with a contract promising higher fees if the managers perform well.

(A) investment officers' fees to be based on how the funds they manage perform, several corporations began

(B) investment officers' fees to be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations began

(C) that fees of investment officers be based on how the funds they manage perform, several corporations have begun

(D) fees of investment officers to be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations have begun

(E) that investment officers' fees be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations began

The correct answer is D. Whenever "since" is in a sentence this indicates the present perfect (has/have + participle) needs to be used. The action happened in the past and is continuing to happen.

In A, B and E, began is in the wrong tense. Since requires the present perfect tense: since 1986...several corporations HAVE BEGUN. Eliminate A, B and E.

In C, be based should not be in the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood is appropriate when an action is being requested or demanded -- not when it is being ALLOWED. The correct idiom here is allow X to Y. Eliminate C.

The correct answer is D.

I am e gmat customer and I see that many e-gmat's articles are great.

The following is from OG. I get to the right answer comfortablly.
But I do not understand the use of "with a contract... well" . This phrase modify the previous clause. Is that right? "with" refer to what noun?

It seem that gmat dose not test this point of grammar. However , knowing how "with"phrase can be used is good for us. I see this "with" phrase appear many times on gmatprep.

e gmat expert, pls, explain fully the role of "with" phrase in the sentence.
Thank you.

Since 1986, when the Department of Labor began to allow// investment officers' fees to be based on how the
funds they manage perform, several corporations began// paying their investment advisers a small basic fee,
with a contract promising higher fees if the managers perform well.
(A) investment officers’ fees to be based on how the funds they manage perform, several corporations
began
(B) investment officers’ fees to be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several
corporations began
123
(C) that fees of investment officers be based on how the funds they manage perform, several corporations
have begun
(D) fees of investment officers to be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several
corporations have begun
(E) that investment officers' fees be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several
corporations began

Hi thangvietnam,

We will definitely write an article on prepositional phrase modifiers. But for now, I will give you a general idea about your query.

“with” modifiers are very versatile modifiers.

They can modify either the preceding clause or the preceding nouns. What they modify actually depends on the context of the sentence and the wording of the modifier itself.

Consider this correct sentence from an official question:
Bihar is India’s poorest state, with an annual per capita income of $111, lower than that of the most impoverished countries of the world.

In this sentence, with modifier actually modifies the preceding noun. With modifier in this sentence has the following sense
India’s poorest state, which has an annual per capita income of $111
Notice how “which has” can be understood to replace “with”.

However, this modifier can be understood to modify the subject of the clause as well because of the nature of the verb - is. This is a linking verb, which establishes the following relationship:
Bihar = India’s poorest state.
So whatever modifies India’s poorest state also modifies Bihar. You can notice similar behavior of the verb-ed modifier in OG12#5 - Diabetes ranks as…

Now lets consider a scenario in which “with” modifier modifies the preceding clause.
This is a GMATPrep Question. You can find the detailed solution of this question at thislink.

Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging like socks on a clothesline.

The highlighted modifier above modifies the preceding clause. In essence this sentence can be written as two separate sentences:
1. Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys sleeping on the branches,
2. Their arms and legs are hung like socks on a clothesline.
So sentence 2 has been converted into with modifier. This modifier extends the thought of the preceding clause by providing a detail supporting it.

Now if the above sounds very complicated, then do not worry about it. As long as you know that these modifiers are versatile and hence can modify preceding clause and preceding nouns, you would be fine. Let the meaning of the sentence guide you. You should understand the meaning of the sentence and ensure that one of these roles fit well.

Now based on this treatment, can you analyze the sentence in your post and tell me what is the role of "with modifier". Remember CONTEXT is the key.

I look forward to your response.
Thanks,

Payal

IMO D for the below reasons. People, please comment on my reasons.

A. 'they' cannot refer to possessive " investment officers' "
B. 'they' cannot refer to possessive " investment officers' "
C. Usage of 'that' is wrong in this case. 'Fees' should be the direct object of the verb 'allow'
D. Right
E. Usage of 'that' is wrong in this case. 'Fees' should be the direct object of the verb 'allow'

Two principles in play here:
1. As the term ‘since’ has been used, the tense of the main clause should be present perfect namely, ‘have begun’ A, B and E are out.
2. A concept such as allowing something is not a subject of the subjunctive mood; Hence C and E are out. This leaves only D. It uses the present perfect and does not use the subjunctive.

2 points to note here

use of since: Since will take present perfect to show the continuous effect
use of allow: Allow is used with infinitive

So A,B,C and E are out and D remains

I chose B... not getting the diff between began/have begun in this structure

Posted from my mobile device

Hello cocojiz,

I will be glad to help you with this one.

Whenever a sentence uses since in the context of time, the sentence uses the present perfect tense verb. For example:

His brother has been serving in the army since 2000.

This official sentence also uses the phrase Since 1986. Hence, the main verb in the sentence must be in present perfect tense. Choices A, B. and E can be right away rejected for the incorrect use of simple past tense verb began.

Between Choice C and D, use of subjunctive verb form in Choice C incorrect. Choice D very precisely presents the intended meaning of the sentence.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Hi Shraddha,

Where is the use of a present perfect tense in the example you provided? Why isn't it "His brother has served in the army since 2000"?

Thanks

Hi GMATNinja,

Though we have no way to disagree with OA, I have the below doubt with option D

In "Fees of investment officers" , investment officers is the object of the preposition "of". And it has been much discussed in other posts that object of a preposition can't act as Subject of a sentence. So how is it that "they"'s antecedent is an object of a preposition?

Regards
Amlan

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. "They" isn't the subject of the sentence: "several corporations" is the subject of the main (independent) clause. And there's no reason why a pronoun can't refer back to the object of a preposition -- if such a rule exists somewhere, the GMAT clearly doesn't care about it.

So sure: by definition, the subject of the sentence can't simultaneously act as the object of a preposition -- but I don't think that's relevant here at all.

I hope this helps!

Hi GMATNinja,

In in the correct option D, i think they refers to investment officers and their refers to several corporations.

So if my reasoning is correct, they and their refer to different entities (investment officers and several corporations's).

Is this case violating the pronoun rule?

Many thanks and I'm looking forward to receive your reply

Hello mba.2020,

Thank you for pointing put the error in my example sentence. I have corrected the same accordingly.

Well generally, when since is used as time marker, the sentence is written in present perfect continuous tense to present the continuation of the action in the present. We have a few official questions as well in which we see this usage in the correct answer choice.

But yes, we can also use just present perfect tense also with since as evident by the correct answer choice of the official problem in question. It is just that we cannot use simple present tense verb with since.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha