In the mid-1920’s the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company

I saw students in the school's parents on Sunday.

I saw students in the school's parents on Sunday.

So my take-away is :

In the construction X's Y : X is the noun DIRECTLY connecting to the appostrophe - Y

I chose E in the OG and it was wrong.
I think the catch is in the word "THE".

E would be perfect if THE were removed. For example, we say "What job do you do?", not "What the job do you do?"

to investigate what effects changes in working conditions would have on workers' performance

In the mid-1920’s the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company was the scene of an intensive series of experiments that would investigate changes in working conditions as to their effects on workers’ performance.

(A) that would investigate changes in working conditions as to their effects on workers’ performance

(B) investigating the effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance

(C) for investigating what are the effects in workers’ performance that changes in working conditions would cause

(D) that investigated changes in working conditions’ effects on workers’ performance

(E) to investigate what the effects changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance

Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack

In the mid-1920’s the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company was the scene of an intensive series of experiments that would investigate changes in working conditions as to their effects on workers’ performance.

(A) that would investigate changes in working conditions as to their effects on workers’ performance

(B) investigating the effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance

Best answer - "investigating" modifies "experiments." "Effects" follow right after "investigating," which logically makes sense.

(C) for investigating what are the effects in workers’ performance that changes in working conditions would cause

(D) that investigated changes in working conditions’ effects on workers’ performance

(E) to investigate what the effects changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance

"What the effects" = unidiomatic

Generally, "what" is redundant / unnecessary.

"to investigate what the effects" is inferior to "to investigate the effects," which is basically the form that (B) has
Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack

Dear nahid78,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, I have some bad news for you. It is absolutely impossible to arrive at GMAT SC mastery simply by learning some mythical "complete" set of rules. Yes, there are some rules and some patterns that are important to know, but everything you need to know can't be summarized by rules alone. Apart from rules, you also need to develop instincts for sophisticated writing, and the only way to do this is to develop a habit of reading. See:
How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score

Students labor under the misconception that the GMAT SC is just a test of grammar. In fact, grammar and logic and rhetoric are all equally important. There are some rules for grammar and logic, although there are elements of both that go beyond rules. Rhetoric is much more pattern-based and feeling-based--it's harder to state many "rules" for good rhetoric. Rules are helpful only up to a certain level, and beyond that, searching for the "right" rule obscures what's important.

OK, let's look at this problem:
In the mid-1920’s the Clyde Fan Factory of the Bosch Manufacturing Company was the scene of an intensive series of experiments that would investigate changes in working conditions as to their effects on workers’ performance.

A. that would investigate changes in working conditions as to their effects on workers’ performance
First of all, one thing that is odd is the hypothetical statement, "would investigate." This is not the form we would use for reporting a simple historical fact. Also, the construction "as to their effects" sounds particularly stilted and excessively formal. The GMAT SC prefers formal language, but that's a little over-the-top.

B. investigating the effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance
simple, clear--a promising answer

C. for investigating what are the effects in workers’ performance that changes in working conditions would cause
The construction "experiments for investigating" is not outright wrong, but a odd. After all, all experiments are "for investigating" something. What's really awkward about this is the wordy indirect backward organization. Notice that it puts the effects at the beginning and the cause at the end: the logical order is to flow from cause to effect. It's not automatically wrong to put the effects first, but it would have to be done skillfully. Here, the effect is very awkward and indirect---it's a rhetorical train wreck!

D. that investigated changes in working conditions’ effects on workers’ performance
Not bad, but it's a little awkward because it's so compressed. Concision is a good thing, rhetorically: saying something in a long wordy way is bad, but it's also a problem to be too short. Notice that after the verb "investigated," there is a pile-up of nouns with no verb. There's cause-and-effect action taking place there, but no verb for that action. It's not "wrong," but awkward---not the way a skilled writer would communicate the idea.

E. to investigate what the effects changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance
This opens with an infinitive of purpose. This one would be pretty good, except for the hypothetical verb "would have." This sentence is not about something hypothetical: it's about a real historical situation, in which real conditions had effects on real workers. As in (A), the hypothetical verb tense doesn't reflect the historical reality.

The only possible answer would be (B). This is a hard question!

Does all this make sense?
Mike

I can't understand why E is wrong. B also has "would have", so why did say that it is wrong in E?

Is this an official question?

in B] experiments can not do the action of investigating!

Is this an official question?

in B] experiments can not do the action of investigating!

It's an official question, and not a very good one.

More than one of its choices express that sketchy meaning, and meanwhile, the use of "would" in (B) doesn't make sense, since it results in the sentence's communicating the somewhat illogical meaning that the point was to see what the effects would be rather than what they are.

Meanwhile, the (D) version is a perfectly good sentence.

I don't agree with the view that this isn't a good question because the meaning that option B conveys is "sketchy". I respect your opinion, but I can't see how we can argue that pairing experiments with investigating is not okay.

(B) investigating the effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers??? performance

can experiments do the action of 'investigating' unable to relate to ing verbal rule here? How to deal with such exceptions

{...}

(E) to investigate what the effects changes in working conditions would have on workers??? performance

is there anything wrong in using 'to investigate'

is 'what the effects changes in working...'' an awkward phrase. are there any similar words like 'what' which make things awkward?

Dear nahid78,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, I have some bad news for you. It is absolutely impossible to arrive at GMAT SC mastery simply by learning some mythical "complete" set of rules. Yes, there are some rules and some patterns that are important to know, but everything you need to know can't be summarized by rules alone. Apart from rules, you also need to develop instincts for sophisticated writing, and the only way to do this is to develop a habit of reading. See:
How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score

Students labor under the misconception that the GMAT SC is just a test of grammar. In fact, grammar and logic and rhetoric are all equally important. There are some rules for grammar and logic, although there are elements of both that go beyond rules. Rhetoric is much more pattern-based and feeling-based--it's harder to state many "rules" for good rhetoric. Rules are helpful only up to a certain level, and beyond that, searching for the "right" rule obscures what's important.

OK, let's look at this problem:
In the mid-1920’s the Clyde Fan Factory of the Bosch Manufacturing Company was the scene of an intensive series of experiments that would investigate changes in working conditions as to their effects on workers’ performance.

A. that would investigate changes in working conditions as to their effects on workers’ performance
First of all, one thing that is odd is the hypothetical statement, "would investigate." This is not the form we would use for reporting a simple historical fact. Also, the construction "as to their effects" sounds particularly stilted and excessively formal. The GMAT SC prefers formal language, but that's a little over-the-top.

B. investigating the effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance
simple, clear--a promising answer

C. for investigating what are the effects in workers’ performance that changes in working conditions would cause
The construction "experiments for investigating" is not outright wrong, but a odd. After all, all experiments are "for investigating" something. What's really awkward about this is the wordy indirect backward organization. Notice that it puts the effects at the beginning and the cause at the end: the logical order is to flow from cause to effect. It's not automatically wrong to put the effects first, but it would have to be done skillfully. Here, the effect is very awkward and indirect---it's a rhetorical train wreck!

D. that investigated changes in working conditions’ effects on workers’ performance
Not bad, but it's a little awkward because it's so compressed. Concision is a good thing, rhetorically: saying something in a long wordy way is bad, but it's also a problem to be too short. Notice that after the verb "investigated," there is a pile-up of nouns with no verb. There's cause-and-effect action taking place there, but no verb for that action. It's not "wrong," but awkward---not the way a skilled writer would communicate the idea.

E. to investigate what the effects changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance
This opens with an infinitive of purpose. This one would be pretty good, except for the hypothetical verb "would have." This sentence is not about something hypothetical: it's about a real historical situation, in which real conditions had effects on real workers. As in (A), the hypothetical verb tense doesn't reflect the historical reality.

The only possible answer would be (B). This is a hard question!

Does all this make sense?
Mike

The study THAT INVESTIGATES CLIMATE CHANGE is costly

(Option B)

In the mid-1920’s the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company was the scene of an intensive series of experiments investigating the effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance

(Option B) In the mid-1920’s the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company was the scene of an intensive series of experiments investigating the effects