In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Ni

Its good question that made me ponder..
already have a "so" joining them. Right? It doesn't seem to be a run-on to me. Can you help me understand why this is a case of run-on error?
Answer:
@UrsTruly, I really loved the explanation of DmitryFarber from MGMAT.
See, clause 1) is clearly independent clause, but clause 2) is not independent. 'it would be two local phone companies and one long-distance provide' In second clause 'it would be ' is the awkward part. Where does 'it' refers?
In the setence construction of X, so Y, it marely says that Y would happen if X has!
To correct the same, we can say, Govt Adv. committee called for the breakup of NTTC, so there will be two local...

All independent clauses should have "Fanboys" coordinating conjugations joining them.
FANBOYS stands for "For-And-Nor-But-Or-Yet-So", One of these will be used to join 2 independent clauses.

---------------------
Press Kudos if you liked my post

DmitryFarber :

So you're saying with the use of illogical 'would' and two independent clauses instead of just one, A is awkward. But, grammatically, it is not faulty or run-on, right? I can clearly see two independent clauses properly connected by using a coordinating conjunction, so Thanks

In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the largest telephone company in the world, so it would be two local phone companies and one long-distance provider.

(A) In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the largest telephone company in the world, so it would be - Run on sentence ; it has two possible antecedents

(B) The breakup of the world's largest telephone company, Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, was called for by a government advisory committee in Japan, so it would be - same as A

(C) A government advisory committee in Japan called for the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the world's largest telephone company, into - Correct

(D) The breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the world's largest telephone company, was called for by a government advisory committee in Japan, so it would be - Same as A

(E) Called for by a government advisory committee, the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company in Japan, the world's largest telephone company, was to be into -- called for .. modifies the breakup

Answer C

daagh

Isn't the construction in the form of IC, so IC. Also in the second IC (It would be... isn't this it a placeholder it?)
Eg: It is futile to resist temptation (Placeholder it)

How are A,B,D faulty then?

I just noticed that someone asked a while back whether A is really wrong just because "would" is illogical. Yes, absolutely. One illogical idea kills the whole thing!

Payal




I didn't get what you meant by " Isn't the construction in the form of IC, so IC". Please clarify.

If you realize that there are two ICs, then the comma between them is a comma splice (run-on)

In the case of the second IC, there are already two possible contenders for the pronoun "it", namely the committee and the company. Why do you want to muddle it further with another antecedent?

Very often, such placeholders are used at the beginnings of the sentences when there are no other possible ways of starting a sentence. However, here you have a full-fledged compound sentence with two ICs and the pronoun is used for the second IC where it might logically refer to the previously single company that is sought to be broken into three separate entities.

I would even concede that he ambiguity part is only secondary. The run-on is a more solid grammar error, which is enough to kill the three choices.

We don't have a run on, since "so" joins the two independent clauses. I think that was Payal's point. However, the logic in those choices is faulty, as I explained in my original post. I think my error was in phrasing things too mildly. It isn't just awkward--it's illogical.

daagh
IC1 - In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the largest telephone company in the world
IC2 - it would be two local phone companies and one long-distance provider.

IC1 & IC2 connected via FANBOYS ('so' in this case). How is it a run on?

payal
It is a slip of my memory that I forgot to read 'so' as a fanboys conjunction.
As Dmitry clarified, you are correct in saying that there is no case of a run-on in these cases.
Thanks for reminding me.

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
"It" is used as placeholder subject here.
"would also seems correct in past tense.
Is there any definite error in options A,B and D ?

This question is based on Construction.

The sentence is made up of a few pieces of information –
1. in Japan
2. a government advisory committee called for
3. the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company
4. the largest telephone company in the world
The most appropriate option is the one that puts together these pieces of information with the last part of the sentence in the most logical manner.

Option A contains the conjunction ‘so’, implying that the second part of the sentence is a consequence of the first. The sentence intends to convey the meaning that the committee has called for the breakup of the company into two local companies and one long-distance provider. Furthermore, the modal auxiliary verb ‘would’ introduces a note of probability into the sentence that is not implied by the first part of the sentence. Since the meaning conveyed is not logical, Option A can be eliminated.

Option B contains an ambiguous pronoun. The pronoun ‘it’ could refer to ‘Japan’, ‘advisory committee’ or ‘the company’. This option also contains the same error of construction as Option A because of the conjunction ‘so’. So, Option B can also be eliminated.

Option C is the most concise version of the sentence. All the pieces of information have been placed in the most appropriate manner. The option also contains the correct idiomatic usage – breakup of the company into. So, Option C is appropriate.

Option D has a passive construction, which makes it wordy. There is also an ambiguous pronoun ‘it’ in this option. The antecedent of the pronoun is not clear, so Option D can be eliminated. This option also contains the same error of construction as Options A and B because of the conjunction ‘so’.

The construction of this option is awkward and wordy. The phrase “breakup of the company was to be into” is clumsily worded. In this option, the modifier "the world's largest telephone company" has been placed after the noun 'Japan" implying that Japan is the world's largest telephone company. So, Option E can also be eliminated.

Therefore, C is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.