It is currently 21 Oct 2017, 18:49

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

I did a GMATPREP this morning..scored around 40 in V.......

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 218

Kudos [?]: 126 [0], given: 0

I did a GMATPREP this morning..scored around 40 in V....... [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2008, 08:52
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 100% (00:58) wrong based on 2 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

I did a GMATPREP this morning..scored around 40 in V....... surprised to see 4 possessive pronoun questions. I didn't know that there is an exception to the rule of possessive pronouns. I am sure a few of us have difficulty identifying possessive pronouns errors trying to beat the clock. I am initiating a discussion here on possessive pronouns. Please participate and share what you know. Feel free to share examples.

I want to start with a familiar one from the OG. Try this and please add explanation to your choice.


Since 1986 when the department of Labor began to allow investment officer's 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.

b. Investment officer's fees to be based on the performance of the funds they manage , several corporations began

c. that fees for 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 officer's fees be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations began

Kudos [?]: 126 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 494

Kudos [?]: 125 [0], given: 66

Location: Kolkata
Re: Possessive pronouns discussion [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2008, 09:17
I would go with e.

how the funds they manage perform -ambiguous so eliminate a and c.
Left with b,d and e.

allow that---subjunctive mood....

Clear witht he meaning,so E.
please correct me if wrong friends.

Kudos [?]: 125 [0], given: 66

Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 02 Aug 2007
Posts: 186

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 0

Schools: Wharton
Re: Possessive pronouns discussion [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2008, 09:50
Clear D for me.

A - Possessive Pronoun problem. What does "they" refer to? They could refer to the fees. Much better to use "their" or make the noun "Investestment officers"..both of these can fix the pronoun error.

B - Same as above
C - Hold
D - Hold
E - Same problem as A and B.


Now between C and D, I don't have a clear grammatical reason why I chose D except "performance of funds they manage" is more concise and less awkward than "how the funds they manage perform"

Therefore, D!

Kudos [?]: 130 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 286

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 0

Re: Possessive pronouns discussion [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2008, 12:10
40 in V ..... good score man ......

Close call between [C] and [D] =>
Both seems grammatically correct ..... but in C the sense is not that clear ....

D

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 0

SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1512

Kudos [?]: 1013 [0], given: 1

Re: Possessive pronouns discussion [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2008, 13:01
aaron22197 wrote:
I did a GMATPREP this morning..scored around 40 in V....... surprised to see 4 possessive pronoun questions. I didn't know that there is an exception to the rule of possessive pronouns. I am sure a few of us have difficulty identifying possessive pronouns errors trying to beat the clock. I am initiating a discussion here on possessive pronouns. Please participate and share what you know. Feel free to share examples.

I want to start with a familiar one from the OG. Try this and please add explanation to your choice.


Since 1986 when the department of Labor began to allow investment officer's 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.

b. Investment officer's fees to be based on the performance of the funds they manage , several corporations began

c. that fees for 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 officer's fees be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations began


I chose D as my answer. Here's why:

The proper idiomatic usage is "allow to", so we are left with a, b, and d. Because the sentence starts with "since....", we know that we want to indicate an action that started since that time until today, so we need the present perfect, hence "have+past participle....that gives us d.

Kudos [?]: 1013 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 295

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 3

Location: Hungary
Re: Possessive pronouns discussion [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2008, 13:07
I agree with Tarek's explanation. SO ,my answer is D.

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 3

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 1792

Kudos [?]: 1063 [0], given: 5

Location: New York
Re: Possessive pronouns discussion [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2008, 13:14
aaron22197 wrote:
I did a GMATPREP this morning..scored around 40 in V....... surprised to see 4 possessive pronoun questions. I didn't know that there is an exception to the rule of possessive pronouns. I am sure a few of us have difficulty identifying possessive pronouns errors trying to beat the clock. I am initiating a discussion here on possessive pronouns. Please participate and share what you know. Feel free to share examples.

I want to start with a familiar one from the OG. Try this and please add explanation to your choice.


Since 1986 when the department of Labor began to allow investment officer's 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.

b. Investment officer's fees to be based on the performance of the funds they manage , several corporations began

c. that fees for 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 officer's fees be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations began


A,B, E --out... possesive poision.
pronoun "they" refers to possesive noun "investment officier's"..

between C and D.

D looks better.
_________________

Your attitude determines your altitude
Smiling wins more friends than frowning

Kudos [?]: 1063 [0], given: 5

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Aug 2006
Posts: 143

Kudos [?]: 177 [0], given: 0

Re: Possessive pronouns discussion [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2008, 17:16
Appending to above mentioed reason(s) ==
C is not correct as in Ans-C the sentence is treated as subjunctive mood .
Ans-D

Kudos [?]: 177 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 210

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

Re: Possessive pronouns discussion [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2008, 19:39
I picked D for the same reasons that many of you cited here. And to confirm that I made the right pick, I dug through my archives and found the same question's OA, which is D (Yay!!!). For those who care to see how other folks have debated this one, please click http://www.google.com/reader/view/#search/Since%201986%20when%20the%20department/3.

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 218

Kudos [?]: 126 [0], given: 0

Re: Possessive pronouns discussion [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2008, 20:28
tarek99 wrote:
aaron22197 wrote:
I did a GMATPREP this morning..scored around 40 in V....... surprised to see 4 possessive pronoun questions. I didn't know that there is an exception to the rule of possessive pronouns. I am sure a few of us have difficulty identifying possessive pronouns errors trying to beat the clock. I am initiating a discussion here on possessive pronouns. Please participate and share what you know. Feel free to share examples.

I want to start with a familiar one from the OG. Try this and please add explanation to your choice.


Since 1986 when the department of Labor began to allow investment officer's 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.

b. Investment officer's fees to be based on the performance of the funds they manage , several corporations began

c. that fees for 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 officer's fees be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations began


I chose D as my answer. Here's why:

The proper idiomatic usage is "allow to", so we are left with a, b, and d. Because the sentence starts with "since....", we know that we want to indicate an action that started since that time until today, so we need the present perfect, hence "have+past participle....that gives us d.


A few of you picked D for idiomatic usage. Tarek came up with an alternate explanation too. This clearly indicates that most difficult questions will have two or more issues and identifying just one can help you solve the question.
Now, Here's the OE and why D is the OA. If this rule is known on possessive pronouns, you would select D in the first go.

If a possessive subject (investment officer's fees ) can be rewritten as "Fees of Investment officers", then "they" can be used to refer to investment officer. This happens only in D. Hence D is the answer.

In general, if you see an occurrence with the 's and if it is rewritten using "of", then subject pronouns can be used to refer to them.

Mary's contributions -----------> her Contributions of Mary -------------> She

Kudos [?]: 126 [0], given: 0

SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1512

Kudos [?]: 1013 [0], given: 1

Re: Possessive pronouns discussion [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2008, 01:40
aaron22197 wrote:
tarek99 wrote:
aaron22197 wrote:
I did a GMATPREP this morning..scored around 40 in V....... surprised to see 4 possessive pronoun questions. I didn't know that there is an exception to the rule of possessive pronouns. I am sure a few of us have difficulty identifying possessive pronouns errors trying to beat the clock. I am initiating a discussion here on possessive pronouns. Please participate and share what you know. Feel free to share examples.

I want to start with a familiar one from the OG. Try this and please add explanation to your choice.


Since 1986 when the department of Labor began to allow investment officer's 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.

b. Investment officer's fees to be based on the performance of the funds they manage , several corporations began

c. that fees for 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 officer's fees be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations began


I chose D as my answer. Here's why:

The proper idiomatic usage is "allow to", so we are left with a, b, and d. Because the sentence starts with "since....", we know that we want to indicate an action that started since that time until today, so we need the present perfect, hence "have+past participle....that gives us d.


A few of you picked D for idiomatic usage. Tarek came up with an alternate explanation too. This clearly indicates that most difficult questions will have two or more issues and identifying just one can help you solve the question.
Now, Here's the OE and why D is the OA. If this rule is known on possessive pronouns, you would select D in the first go.

If a possessive subject (investment officer's fees ) can be rewritten as "Fees of Investment officers", then "they" can be used to refer to investment officer. This happens only in D. Hence D is the answer.

In general, if you see an occurrence with the 's and if it is rewritten using "of", then subject pronouns can be used to refer to them.

Mary's contributions -----------> her Contributions of Mary -------------> She



I have a question. How come you say that "they" can refer to Investment officers when written as the object of a prepositional phrase? "They" is a subject pronoun, so how can a subject pronoun refer to an object of the prepositional phrase "fees of investment officers"? I think that "they" is rather referring to the "fees" since it is the subject of the prepositional phrase. what do you guys think? I'm not sure of what i'm saying, but this is what I personally think and would like to see how correct is that.

Kudos [?]: 1013 [0], given: 1

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 218

Kudos [?]: 126 [0], given: 0

Re: Possessive pronouns discussion [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2008, 08:34
Tarek,

If you have access to the purple - OG , look at the OE for SC 86. OE mentions that if the sentence can be rewritten with "of" , then they can be used to refer to investment officers. Let me know if i have not understood the OE correctly.

Kudos [?]: 126 [0], given: 0

SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1512

Kudos [?]: 1013 [0], given: 1

Re: Possessive pronouns discussion [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2008, 11:05
aaron22197 wrote:
Tarek,

If you have access to the purple - OG , look at the OE for SC 86. OE mentions that if the sentence can be rewritten with "of" , then they can be used to refer to investment officers. Let me know if i have not understood the OE correctly.


Well, I just had a look at the purple book, but it doesn't address how "they" is not ambiguous because it could refer to fees or investment officers. what makes it clear that "they" is referring only to "investment officers"? I understand the role of "of", but I have a problem with "they" because we have more than one plural nouns here. would anyone know?

Kudos [?]: 1013 [0], given: 1

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 1792

Kudos [?]: 1063 [0], given: 5

Location: New York
Re: Possessive pronouns discussion [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2008, 12:35
tarek99 wrote:
aaron22197 wrote:
Tarek,

If you have access to the purple - OG , look at the OE for SC 86. OE mentions that if the sentence can be rewritten with "of" , then they can be used to refer to investment officers. Let me know if i have not understood the OE correctly.


Well, I just had a look at the purple book, but it doesn't address how "they" is not ambiguous because it could refer to fees or investment officers. what makes it clear that "they" is referring only to "investment officers"? I understand the role of "of", but I have a problem with "they" because we have more than one plural nouns here. would anyone know?


In this example .. all 5 options have .. "they" pronoun
In this case.. if you find two nouns.. try to substitute it and see which noun make sense..

"they" manage funds --> "fees" manage funds -- make sense..???? No..
"Investment officers" manage funds -- Yes sounds good.
So "they" clearly refers to "Investment officers"
--It's not ambigous.

See bellow example.

Fees of Investment Officers.... fees of sales people... .. they get benefits based on peformance of funds.
--> here "they" can refer to "investment officer" or "sales people"
Here "they" is ambigous.

Just my thoughts.
_________________

Your attitude determines your altitude
Smiling wins more friends than frowning


Last edited by x2suresh on 31 Jul 2008, 12:56, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 1063 [0], given: 5

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 781

Kudos [?]: 183 [0], given: 0

Re: Possessive pronouns discussion [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2008, 12:49
As “aaron22197” posted, I too have possessive pronoun blind spots. May be due to time constraint or inherent limitation I will miss possessive pronoun questions.

Coming to question - D look good

Allow that – is unidiomatic in this context – so eliminate C and E
Between A, B and E:

In A and B – “they” subject pronoun cannot refer back “possessive noun” Investment officer's

Only D survives

Kudos [?]: 183 [0], given: 0

SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1512

Kudos [?]: 1013 [0], given: 1

Re: Possessive pronouns discussion [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2008, 13:22
x2suresh wrote:
tarek99 wrote:
aaron22197 wrote:
Tarek,

If you have access to the purple - OG , look at the OE for SC 86. OE mentions that if the sentence can be rewritten with "of" , then they can be used to refer to investment officers. Let me know if i have not understood the OE correctly.


Well, I just had a look at the purple book, but it doesn't address how "they" is not ambiguous because it could refer to fees or investment officers. what makes it clear that "they" is referring only to "investment officers"? I understand the role of "of", but I have a problem with "they" because we have more than one plural nouns here. would anyone know?


In this example .. all 5 options have .. "they" pronoun
In this case.. if you find two nouns.. try to substitute it and see which noun make sense..

"they" manage funds --> "fees" manage funds -- make sense..???? No..
"Investment officers" manage funds -- Yes sounds good.
So "they" clearly refers to "Investment officers"
--It's not ambigous.

See bellow example.

Fees of Investment Officers.... fees of sales people... .. they get benefits based on peformance of funds.
--> here "they" can refer to "investment officer" or "sales people"
Here "they" is ambigous.

Just my thoughts.



yeah, I can see what you're trying to say. Basically, "investment officer" should be the most logical referent for the pronoun "they." I would still eliminate such a combination, but as you said since all the answer choices still use "they" and there is really no other better to choose from, then I guess this is when you have to rely on which referent should be the most logical one that the pronoun "they" could be referring to.

Kudos [?]: 1013 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 286

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 0

Re: Possessive pronouns discussion [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Jul 2008, 13:58
Why is C wrong because using subjunctive mood ?
=> I think the subjunctive use is correct but it changes the meaning.

Kudos [?]: 117 [0], given: 0

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 1792

Kudos [?]: 1063 [0], given: 5

Location: New York
Re: Possessive pronouns discussion [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jan 2009, 21:40
huntgmat wrote:
Why is C wrong because using subjunctive mood ?
=> I think the subjunctive use is correct but it changes the meaning.


Since 1985 .. means it started in the past and continues into present.
C is wrong because we need "have begun" instead of 'began"
_________________

Your attitude determines your altitude
Smiling wins more friends than frowning

Kudos [?]: 1063 [0], given: 5

Re: Possessive pronouns discussion   [#permalink] 28 Jan 2009, 21:40
Display posts from previous: Sort by

I did a GMATPREP this morning..scored around 40 in V.......

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.