In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in t

Question

In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United Stated today,  a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted  within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.

(A) a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted

(B) a corporation is committing a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if those employees were acting

(C) corporations commit a crime whenever one of its employees does, on the condition that the employee acts

D) corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting

(E) the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the employee acted

mikemcgarry · Accepted Answer

Dear Chemerical71 , A great question! I'm happy to respond! :-)

A. a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted This choice is flawless, a promising candidate. B. a corporation is committing a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if those employees were acting The present progressive " is committing " is awkward, and it mismatches the tense of " committed "--those two should have the same tense, because they are simultaneous actions. This is incorrect. C. corporations commit a crime whenever one of its employees does, on the condition that the employee acts Mismatch between antecedent & pronoun: " corporations . . . its employees ." This is incorrect. D. corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting This is is logically flaw: how can a single employee be an employee of multiple corporations? Also, after the comma, this one uses "it" to refer to the employee! This is incorrect. E. the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the employee acted A logical mismatch: how many employees are committing crimes here? We have multiple criminal employees before the comma, but only a singular example after the comma. This is incorrect. The only possible answer is (A). Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

anshunadir · Answer

In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United Stated today,  a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted  within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.

A. a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted   correct - parallelism is maintained "if the employee acted .... and if the corporation benefited"  
B. a corporation is  committing  a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if those employees were acting   incorrect tense - present continuous is not required...needs a simple present tense  
C. corporations commit a crime whenever one of  its  employees does,  on the condition  that the employee acts    its(singular) cannot refer to corporations, usage of "on the condition" is awkward in this sentence  
D. corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting   Subject verb agreement employee (singular), commit (plural)  
E. the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the employee acted   whenever and if have different meanings

Apart from other mistakes, Parallelism is also hurt in options B,C,D,E

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem: 
Understanding the meaning of this sentence is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, in the event that the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and the corporation benefited as a result.

Concepts tested here: Subject-Verb Agreement + Meaning + Tenses + Pronouns + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• The simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature.
• The simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past. 
• The simple present continuous tense is used to refer to actions that are currently ongoing and continuous in nature.
• The simple past continuous tense is used to refer to actions that were ongoing over a period of time in the past.

A:   Correct.  This answer choice correctly refers to the singular pronoun phrase "one of its employees" with the singular verb "commits". Moreover, Option A avoids the pronoun errors seen in Options C and D, as it clearly and logically refers to the singular pronoun "a corporation" with the singular pronoun "it". Further, Option A uses the phrases "one of its employees" and "if the employee acted", conveying the intended meaning - that any   individual   corporation commits a crime whenever an employee belonging to   that   corporation commits a crime, in the event that the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and the corporation benefited as a result. Additionally, Option A correctly uses the simple present tense verb "commits" to refer to information that is permanent in nature and uses the simple past tense verb "acted" to refer to an action that concluded in the past. Besides, Option A is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

B:  This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple present continuous tense verb "is committing" and the simple past tense verb "committed" to refer to information that is permanent in nature; please remember, information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense, the simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past, and the simple present continuous tense is used to refer to actions that are currently ongoing and continuous in nature. Moreover, Option B incorrectly uses the simple past continuous tense verb "were acting" to refer to an action that concluded in the past; please remember, actions that concluded in the past are conveyed through the simple past tense, and the simple past continuous tense is used to refer to actions that were ongoing over a period of time in the past.

C:  This answer choice incorrectly refers to the plural noun "corporations" with the singular pronoun "its". Further, Option C incorrectly uses the simple present tense verb "acts" to refer to an action that concluded in the past; remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to actions that concluded in the past, and the simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature. Additionally, Option C uses the needlessly wordy construction "on the condition that", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

D:  This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun phrase "an employee" with the plural verb "commit". Further, Option D alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "an employee of those corporations"; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that corporations   collectively   commit crimes whenever an employee belonging to   all of the corporations   commits a crime; the intended meaning is that any   individual   corporation commits a crime whenever an employee belonging to   that   corporation commits a crime. Additionally, Option D suffers from a pronoun error, as the pronoun "it" lacks a clear and logical referent.

E:  This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrases "whose employees commit a crime" and "whenever the employee acted"; the construction of these phrases leads to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, in the event that the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and the corporation benefited as a result.

Hence, A is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATNTtugB9fM

To understand the concept of "Simple Continuous Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fndw1N0nWXw

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

trivikram · Answer

I think it should be A

 and if the corporation benefited as a result  at the end of the sentence says that we need to corporation but not corporation  s

kripalkavi · Answer

B - not parallel
C, D - pronoun problems
E - muddled and akward.

 A stands.

Romakaul · Answer

2 things to keep in mind for this one. First, the count. Second, parallelism.

A. a corporation commits a crime whenever  one of its employees  commits a crime, if  the employee   acted... benefited  - count of employee matches. Parallelism matches
B. a corporation is committing a crime whenever  one of its employees  committed a crime, if  those employees  were acting- Count of employee doesn't match.
C. corporations commit a crime whenever one of its employees does, on the condition that the employee  acts...benefited - No parallelism.
D. corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while  acting..benefited - No parallelism.
E. the corporation whose  employees  commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the  employee  acted - Count doesnt match.

TeamGMATIFY · Answer

In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United Stated today,  a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted  within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.

A  . a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted
Correct. The subject verb agreement is in place
  B  . a corporation is committing a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if those employees were acting
Tenses do not match with each other. Continuous tense is used for an ongoing action. Here employee has already committed a crime, hence corporation has also already committed a crime and is not in the process of doing so.
  C  . corporations commit a crime whenever one of its employees does, on the condition that the employee acts
Subject Verb agreement. Corporations need a "those" not "its"
  D  . corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting
Subject Verb agreement. Employee needs "commits" not "commit"
  E  . the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the employee acted
Whenever changes the meaning of the sentence

sleepynut · Answer

Hi mikemcgarry , I have no objection with the correct answer. However,can you please elaborate more on the shift of tense in option (A). IMHO,the second part after "but" explains the condition of criminal law.If this condition is met,something happens. Why the tense are not all in present tense in this part? Thanks :-)

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear sleepynut I'm happy to respond. :-)

This is a somewhat unusual construction. It sounds perfectly natural to a native speaker, but I can see that it would be puzzling to a non-native speaker. The basic idea is that there's a time lag between the actions and the evaluation of the actions. You see, if someone steal a car or breaks into a house, these actions are unambiguously crimes, and so the crime is the same as the action and they both happen at the same time. With a complex corporate situation, it's much more ambiguous. Several actors are doing several different things, some responding to direct orders, some responding to company protocols, some acting on their own initiative. A set of consequences arises from all these actions that fall outside what ordinarily would result from legal behavior. Somebody has to investigate, and it may be weeks or months later before this investigator reaches the conclusion that what happened much earlier constituted a crime. The verbs " commits " are in the present, because the judgment that it is a crime is in the present: really, it's a general rule, which is always spoken in the present. The verbs after the comma, about the individual actions themselves, are in the past because invariably they happened long before any judgment is rendered. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

Skywalker18 · Answer

In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United Stated today,  a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted  within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.

(A) a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted - Correct

(B) a corporation is committing a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if those employees were acting - Tense issue -- is committing and committed should be in same tense

(C) corporations commit a crime whenever one of its employees does, on the condition that the employee acts - tense issue - acts and benefited should be in same tense since both of those actions are simultaneous; corporations and its employees -- Pronoun issue

D) corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if it was while acting - tense issue same as C

(E) the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the employee acted - the modifier "whose employees commit a crime" is set off by only one comma. a modifier must be set off by either 2 commas or 0 commas (unless it begins or ends the entire sentence).
 unacceptable shift of meaning: the original context is that the corporation commits a crime if ONE of the employees commits a crime, but this sentence describes a crime committed by multiple employees
"whenever" is not parallel to "...and if"

In conditional verb, we have the below three forms-
1. IF clause (Simple present), Then (Simple present or Simple future)
2. IF clause (Simple past), Then (Simple past or Would verb)
3. IF clause (Past perfect), Then (Would have verb)

In OA-A, since the IF clause is in simple past - if the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.
shouldn't the THEN clause - a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime- be in simple past?

1.In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United States today, a corporation committed a crime whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result. --> The use of past tense here seems awkward as the fact is still true.

2. In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United States today, a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acts within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefits as a result. --> This seems better

AjiteshArun  ,  GMATNinja  ,  MagooshExpert  ,  GMATGuruNY  ,  VeritasKarishma  ,  DmitryFarber  ,  ChiranjeevSingh  ,  VeritasPrepBrian  ,  MartyMurray  , other experts - please enlighten

Answer A

bae · Answer

based on the none underline portion, (after the underline)

I can strike off B,C,D and E using parallelism

....if acted and if benefited...

Agree?

anyway, in this question, i work backward. 
1. his or her (singular)
therefore, the preceding pronoun should be singular.
we end up with a "an employee"
we can strike off B -employees "were" acting

then continue to work backward,
2. based on logical,
the clause before should be in reference to singular employee,
strike off E

3. in C, corporations ...its employees
wrong subject-verb

4. in D, an employee ... commit
wrong subject-verb

Aside from the above,
on the condition - awkward
if it was while acting - wrong verb, past continuous/ changes the meaning 
whenever-changes the meaning

EducationAisle · Answer

Yes, but only in  this  specific case. One needs to remember that  parallelism  does  not  imply that various parts of the sentence should be in the same  tense .

For example, following sentence would be correct:

If someone is dedicated and if someone has been working hard, that person will score well.

If someone is dedicated - Simple Present
If someone has been working hard - Present Perfect Continuous

Not the most ideal of sentences, but conveys the idea.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

This is a question based on Tense usage, Parallelism and Sentence Structure.

Option A is correct as it maintains the structure of a conditional sentence. 
It also has consistency of tense - a corporation  commits  a crime whenever one of its employees  commits  a crime, if the employee  acted  within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation  benefited  as a result.
 So, Option A is the most appropriate.

The present continuous tense “is committing” is incorrect  in this sentence as the sentence conveys a general truth according to the law. The simple present tense must be used to convey a general truth.  There is also a mismatch between the present continuous tense and the simple past tense “committed”.   Furthermore, the verb “were acting” is not parallel to “benefitted”.  These two verbs must be parallel to each other as they indicate the two conditions under which the law applies. So,  Option B  can be eliminated.

In Option C - 
1. There is a pronoun reference error – the singular pronoun  ‘its’  cannot refer to the plural antecedent  “corporations” .
2. The  phrase “on the condition that the employee acts”  is not parallel to the  conditional clause “if the corporation benefited as a result” .
So,  Option C  can be eliminated.

In Option D – 
1. There is disagreement between the subject and verb –  the verb ‘commit’ is in the plural , while  its subject ‘employee’ is singular .
2. The pronoun ‘it’ is ambiguous in the phrase “if it was while acting”. 
3. The participle  ‘acting’  is not parallel to the verb  ‘benefitted’ .
So,  Option D  can be eliminated.

Option E is awkward and wordy. It also contains an error of parallelism.  The two clauses at the end of the sentence – whenever the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result are not parallel in structure . 
So,  Option E  can be eliminated.

Therefore, A is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.

Hoozan · Answer

EducationAisle GMATNinja "if" is only used to present a condition. In such contractions we need a "If" and a "then" situation. But this sentence doesn't use "if" in that manner. We clearly need "if" however since the non-underlined part of the sentence has an "and if". And hence to maintain parallelism we need "if"

But how is this a correct usage?

But how is this a correct usage?

Raki12 · Answer

mikemcgarry  - thank you for your explanation! 
  GMATNinja 
I know why choices B-E are wrong. But, don't you have a comma splice in choice A?

Complete Sentence 1: criminal law does not apply to corporations
Complete Sentence 2: a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime

So don't you need like semi-colon or period to separate these sentences instead of combining them with a comma?

mSKR · Answer

i think you missed "but" - conjunction joining 2 clauses.

In many nations,  criminal law does not apply to corporations,   but  in the United Stated today, a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.

EtaCarnia · Answer

Hey  mSKR

Can you help me with this question please. I am not sure what triggered the Parallism in this sentence .

Thanks

mSKR · Answer

In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in the United Stated today,  a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime, if the employee acted  within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result.
Step: split the sentence into small chunks ; remove unnecessary words

In many nations,   criminal law does not apply to corporations,  but   in the United Stated today ,   a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime  ,  if the employee acted    within the scope of his or her authority and if the corporation benefited as a result .

so the core of sentence is ==
Subject Verb , conjunction BUT SUBJECT VERB ( Dependent clause) i.e.:

criminal law does not apply to corporations , BUT a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime

By now , you have understood the core of sentence and its meaning.

how about we keep this option on hold for now and lets see if we can reject other options easily?

Ok 1st part we have : criminal law  does not apply  to corporations
(B) a corporation  is committing a crime  whenever one of its employees committed a crime, if those employees were acting

I would not reject it directly just because it is in continuous tense. i will reject because the meaning is non sensical tense wise
If X happens , then Y happens
If X happens, then Y is happening --> it may make sense in some scenario but at least in this scenario its better to use both in same tense ( present tense to display information . we donot use +ing because some action is not happening continuously). 
Some people say it as parallelism, I would say it as wrong tense. 
For me parallelism issue means if both parallel parts are using the same structure elements 
If X happens, Y is happening - i wont say it as parallelism issue 
If X happens, Y might have happened - no parallelism issue - both sides have nouns and verbs

When X happened , I went by car ,boat and by walk --> i would say this as parallelism issue because on parallelism marker : by car, boat( sentence element - preposition "by") is missing.

(C) corporations commit a crime whenever one of  its  employees does, on the condition that the employee acts= its has no antecedent 
(D) corporations commit crimes whenever an employee of those corporations commit a crime, if  it was while acting - wrong tense
(E) the corporation whose employees commit a crime, commits a crime, whenever the employee  acted - wrong tense

wrong options are rejected because of tense issues/SV agreement issue ,  I don't think use of different tense should be called as parallelism issue . But it doesn't matter to our end result of getting the right answer.

In summary, Once you understand the meaning and core structure, you can see the right and wrong options more easily. Sometimes even 2 options are grammatically correct and same as meaning wise. You would be able to make a decision why one option is better than others. 
 
I just noticed that even Expert in  this post has not used the parallelism error in his explanation .
(sometimes we may not even know what could be the name of this error but it would not hurt our chances of getting the right answer as far as we 1. extract the meaning 2. understand the structure )

I hope it helps.

GMATNinja · Answer

The sentence does in fact imply an if-then situation. Something like, "IF an employee acted within the scope of his or her authority and IF the corporation benefited as a result, THEN a corporation commits a crime whenever one of its employees commits a crime." Logically, this holds up as a conditional statement.

In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in t

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

In many nations, criminal law does not apply to corporations, but in t

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia