OFFICIAL EXPLANATIONProject SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC1)
THE PROMPTQuote:
In a review of hiring practices that date back to the 1950s, modern hiring managers, emphasizing that since most hiring practices had failed to account for rapid changes in technology and employee temperament, none should be considered best practices in the modern workplace.
THE OPTIONSQuote:
A) managers, emphasizing that since most hiring practices had failed to account for rapid changes in technology and employee temperament,
• Missing verb
→ The main subject,
managers, does not have a working verb.
→
emphasizing is a not a working verb. The
emphasizing ... phrase
modifies the subject but does not provide the subject with a verb.
ELIMINATE A
Quote:
B) managers, emphasizing that most hiring practices failed in accounting for rapid changes in technology and employee temperament, and
• Missing verb
→ same problem as that in option A
• idiom error
→
Correct:
X failed to account for Y.
→
Wrong: X failed in accounting for Y.
If you do not know this idiom, for goodness' sake and perhaps that of your own mental health, do not worry about it.
ELIMINATE B
Quote:
C) managers emphasized that since most hiring practices, having failed to account for rapid changes in technology and employee temperament,
• Missing verb
→ Although this option provides the subject
managers with a verb (
emphasized), this option fails to provide a working verb for the subject
practices, which is the subject of another clause.
(Sidebar: Clauses always have verbs. Phrases do not.)
ELIMINATE C
Quote:
D) managers emphasized that most hiring practices fail to account for rapid changes in technology and employee temperament,
• comma splice
→ Let's strip the sentence.
The sentence, stripped:
Managers emphasized that most hiring practices fail, none should be considered best practices. → we cannot "stick" two independent clauses together with nothing more than a comma. (In this option, the clauses are both independent.)
Doing so is called a "comma splice."
We have three ways to join two independent clauses:
1) COMMA + conjunction
2) semicolon (no coordinating conjunction!)
3) semicolon + conjunctive adverb (however, therefore, consequently) / transition expression
If you do not understand what I just wrote above, I heartily recommend a fairly short explanation from a terrific source that you can read by
clicking here. I would read those two pages and be sure that I knew the material.
• nonsensical because lacking a subordinate conjunction such as
since→ even if you have no idea what a subordinate conjunction is, when you read this sentence it should sound nonsensical.
A logical "connecting" word is missing. This option does not include the word "since," and the sentence is bizarre without it.
ELIMINATE D
Quote:
E) managers emphasized that since most hiring practices had failed to account for rapid changes in technology and employee temperament,
• Well, by POE, this is the answer
• I do not see any errors
• the subject
managers is paired with the working verb
emphasized• the subject of the dependent clause,
practices, is also paired with a working verb,
had failed• the logic is clean: Managers emphasized that
because ["since"] most hiring practices had failed to keep up with modernity, none [of those practices] should be considered best practices.
KEEP
The answer is E.
COMMENTS Shikhar22 ,
sivatx2 , and
100mitra , welcome to SC Butler.
I'm glad that you decided to post.
All aspirants have a standing invitation to do so.
Posting is a really good way to cement your understanding of concepts, especially when, as I require, you explain to the reader why you are eliminating or keeping certain items.
Most of these posts are very good.
I see at least three that are worthy of a bump to Best Community Reply, but I have bumped two of you before.
So,
sivatx2 , I am bumping you to Best Community Reply.
New people will get credit on their first day for answers that do not explain, after which new people will need to explain their answers.
We are here to learn from one another.
Nice work.