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

(A) that would investigate changes in working conditions as to their effects on workers’ performance
-“that” is modifying experiment. It is illogical to write that “experiment” would investigate. Hence wrong

(B) investigating the effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance
- A present participle modifying the total sentence is allowed in GMAT. Hence correct

(C) for investigating what are the effects in workers’ performance that changes in working conditions would cause
- “what are the effects in workers’ performance that changes in working conditions would cause “ is totally written in awkward manner. Hence incorrect.


(D) that investigated changes in working conditions’ effects on workers’ performance
-“that” is modifying experiment. It is illogical to write that “experiment” would investigate. Hence wrong

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

- “what the effects changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance”
is totally written in awkward manner. Hence incorrect.

Hope this helps

Can you Spot the Meaning Error?

- By ManhattanPrep

Sentence Correction tests grammar, yes, but it also tests meaning. In fact, a decent chunk of grammar actually revolves around meaning in the first place.

Try this GMATPrep problem from the free exams and then we’ll talk about it.

In the mid-1920s 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 the effects on workers’ performance are 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 did you think? I did give away that this problem tests meaning; did you spot any meaning issues?

The first step on SC is to glance at the start of the underline (even before you read the sentence). The underline starts halfway through on the word that. The word that can signal issues with modifiers or with the underlying sentence structure, so keep these possibilities in mind as you move to the next step, reading the sentence.

Did you like the original sentence or did you think there was something wrong with it?

In fact, the original has a meaning issue! We have a starting point. The sentence talks about something that happened nearly 100 years ago, so it doesn’t make sense to say that these experiments would investigate something. The place was the scene of the experiments conducted at that time in the past.

You can use would properly in certain past conditions: She would have eaten the fish if she hadn’t been allergic. If she ate fish, she would have an allergic reaction. The test results showed that feeding her fish would cause an allergic reaction.

You can’t, then, just cross off any other answers that also contain would; you’ll have to read to figure out the meaning.

Answers (B), (D), and (E) all use would, but they don’t say would investigate. Instead, all three talk about what effects changes in working conditions would cause or would have.
This usage is acceptable because the information is conveying a cause-effect relationship: changes cause effects. By definition, the effects have to happen later than the changes. The word would can be used to indicate a “future in the past” meaning, similar to the example The test results showed that feeding her fish would cause an allergic reaction.

Hmm, that starting point allowed the elimination of only one answer, (A). Back to the drawing board. What next?
If you noticed anything else about the original sentence that you didn’t like, try that next. Otherwise, scan the answers vertically to spot differences and tackle one of those differences. Let’s follow the latter path next.

The opening of each answer is as follows:

The Hawthorne Works was the scene of a series of experiments…
(A) that would investigate…
(B) investigating…
(C) for investigating…
(D) that investigated…
(E) to investigate…

Idiom time. It’s acceptable to say a series of experiments that did something or a series of experiments investigating something.
It isn’t acceptable to say a series of experiments for investigating something. If you wanted to convey that kind of meaning, you’d need to say something similar to a series of experiments designed to investigate something. You can also drop the word designed and go straight into to investigate.

Okay, (A) and (C) down, three to go. What next?
Here’s where it gets a bit messy. The remaining portions of the choices differ enough that you can’t compare a single word or a couple of words. Now you have to look at an entire chunk of each sentence.

Here are (B), (D), and (E) again. What are these things trying to say?
“(B) investigating the effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance
“(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”

Something like: when there were changes in working conditions, what effects would there be on performance?

Do all three options convey this logically and unambiguously?

As it turns out, no. Take a look at answer (D). Strip out the modifiers:
“(D) that investigated changes in working conditions’ effects on workers’ performance”

(D) that investigated changes in effects on performance
This choice doesn’t talk about changes in the conditions. It talks about changes in the effects. It doesn’t make any sense to jump straight to the effects—you change the input (conditions) to see how the output then changes. Very tricky!

Answers (B) and (E) are very close. The only differences are towards the beginning.
“(B) investigating the effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance
“(E) to investigate what the effects changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance”

This last one is the trickiest of all. Consider these two examples:

New York was the scene of a study investigating the theft.
New York was the scene of a study to investigate what the theft.

You probably knew immediately that the second sentence is wrong. Why? Once you toss in the word what, you need a clause (a verb) to go with theft: New York was the scene of a study to investigate what the theft then led to in future.

Choice (E) uses the word what, but this choice doesn’t make the effects portion a clause. The verb would have applies to changes. You could say something like “to investigate what the effects on workers’ performance are when there are changes in working conditions.” That sentence is a little clunky, but it does contain the necessary verb. (Notice that answer (C) also uses the word what and that one does talk about what the effects are.)

That takes us down to one answer, (B). This answer uses an acceptable idiom (a series of experiments investigating…) and conveys the appropriate meaning (they were investigating the effects that resulted from changes in working conditions).

In my opinion, the test writers purposely used would investigate incorrectly in (A) hoping that people would then automatically eliminate other answers because they also use what seems to be a similar, incorrect verb structure. Conveniently, the correct answer contains would have, so anyone doing this will have just crossed off the correct answer. That leaves answer (D), which seems just fine if you don’t notice that the meaning is illogical (and that choice is written confusingly enough that it would be easy to overlook the meaning issue).

The correct answer is (B).

Key Takeaways: Meaning in SC

[i](1) Always go for the low-hanging fruit first: anything that you know how to tackle easily and confidently. This will help you to narrow down the answers before you have to get to the toughest stuff, making it easier (though not easy!) for you to try to strip out the trickiest traps.

(2) When answers change as much as the ones in this example do, you are probably looking at a Structure, Modifier, Meaning, or Parallelism issue (or multiple issues intertwined). You’ll likely have to compare entire chunks of the answers, not just a few words at a time.

(3) When you do have to compare chunks, first get the meaning straight in your head: what is the sentence actually trying to convey? Be on the lookout for choices that twist the meaning in an illogical or ambiguous way; you can cross these off.

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

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 It is unclear what “their” refers to. Since there are several plural antecedents like “experiments”, “changes” and effects, the use of “their” is unclear.

(B) investigating the effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance No errors in this option.

(C) for investigating what are the effects in workers’ performance that changes in working conditions would cause I understand that “for” in “for experimenting” could seem like the reason for the experiments in being referred to, but this is awkward usage. Furthermore, “what are” is not needed here.

(D) that investigated changes in working conditions’ effects on workers’ performance This option is telling us that the experiments investigated the changes in the effects. The original sentence tells us that the experiments investigated the changes in the working conditions. This option changes the meaning.

(E) to investigate what the effects changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance “what the effect changes in working conditions” is just awkward usage.

- Nitha Jay

Hello Raihanuddin

Here is my 2 cents.

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
Wrong.
- Why A uses "would investigate" that implies an intention. In fact, the action - "investigate - happened in the past.
- "as to" does not make any sense.

(B) investigating the effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance
Correct.
- "investigating" is a verb-ing modifier

(C) for investigating what are the effects in workers’ performance that changes in working conditions would cause
Wrong.
- "for investigating" sounds wrong. To express a purpose, we should use "TO + Verb" not "For + VerbING".
- "that" modifies "performance" incorrectly.

(D) that investigated changes in working conditions’ effects on workers’ performance
Wrong.
- D changes meaning. Because of the possessive form - "working conditions' effects" ==> the ultimate main noun is "effects" NOT "working conditions" ==> a compound noun becomes "changes in effects". Definitely, "change in effects on workers’ performance" is nonsensical in this sentence.
For example: changes of water's colors ==> means "change of colors" NOT "changes of water".

(E) to investigate what the effects changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance
Wrong.
- "The effects changes" is wrong. The correct meaning is changes in working conditions have effects on workers' performance.

Hope it's clear.

Actually 'that' belongs to a category called 'essential' modifiers. Essential modifiers can surprisingly modify either the word or the phrase before them, whatever makes sense; this is as opposed to non-essential modifiers such as 'which', which (almost always) modify the word preceding those modifiers.

B expresses the meaning in a most lucid manner and is hence the correct answer. Usage such as "working conditions’ effects " or "what the effects changes in working conditions" are clearly awkward.

Read Ron's(MGMAT tutor) explanations

the participle "investigating" follows "experiments" immediately. no filler words are necessary; this is good concision.
the wording is clear; there are no awkward double possessives, etc., as in some of the other choices.
"would" is used properly here, as a past-tense form of "will". (i.e., if this sentence were translated into the present tense, it would read "...that changes ... will have")

B !

intensive series OF experiments that --- Here "that" incorrectly refers to "series" because of the "OF" construction. Need a participle to modify the "experiments"

(b) is the best choice here.

(a) is vague because it's overly indirect: the meaning of "investigate changes ... as to their effects" is unclear. what's more, it's probably considered unidiomatic as well, at least in this sort of context.

(b) = correct
the participle "investigating" follows "experiments" immediately. no filler words are necessary; this is good concision.
the wording is clear; there are no awkward double possessives, etc., as in some of the other choices.
"would" is used properly here, as a past-tense form of "will". (i.e., if this sentence were translated into the present tense, it would read "...that changes ... will have")

(c) is ridiculously wordy; there's no way you should give this choice any serious consideration. if you don't realize pretty quickly that this choice is wrong, you should go back and read through a bunch of correct OG answers, trying to internalize the sights and sounds (the "vibe") of the correct answers.

(d) "changes in working conditions' effects" is at best awkward and vague, and at worst ambiguous: the intended meaning is the effects of the changes, but this sentence seems to indicated the effects of the conditions themselves. in other words, a literal reading of this sentence seems to indicate that the conditions themselves haven't changed - only their effects have. that's not the intended meaning of the original.

(e) "what the effects" is ungrammatical.
also, in constructions of this sort, "what" is generally redundant / unnecessary; it's better merely to say "to investigate X" rather than to say "to investigate what X is" (or other such wordy construction).

Hi jrashish,

Thanks for posting your doubt here. We appreciate your effort.

Yes, you are correct that in the correct answer choice B, the verb-ing modifier modifies the preceding noun entity "series of experiments". Yes, it is kind of a bit odd to say that the "series of experiments" did the investigation about something. But it is certainly not incorrect. This expression is absolutely acceptable on GMAT.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Dear nahid78,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, one of the very difficult aspects of the English language for any non-native speaker to grasp are the subtle differences in implication created by different tenses, especially those using auxiliary verbs. For example, consider these variants:
I swim at the gym.
I am swimming at the gym.
I have swum at the gym.
I can swim at the gym.
I could swim at the gym.
I would swim at the gym.
I should swim at the gym.
I may swim at the gym.
I might swim at the gym.
Each one of these has a slightly different implication, and in different contexts, some would be right and some completely wrong. If you don't have a good sense of the differences among these, I would say that you have more content about the English language that you need to learn. Magoosh has a good English course that might help you, and there are other courses. There is no "quick trick." If you don't understand these, you have some fundamentals that you need to learn, probably in a course of some kind.

In (B), the word "investigating" modifies "series of experiments." Here's the thing. Language is not perfectly logical, in part because human beings are not perfectly logical. Language, by its very nature, lends itself to poetry and metaphor. Even though the language on the GMAT reflects a formal academic tone, some metaphors are so deeply ingrained in the language that they appears. Whenever anyone in the natural or social science talk about experiments, it is 100% natural to say that "the experiment demonstrated X" or "the experiment did not find that Y was the case" or "the experiment investigated Z." Yes, if we were going to be 100% literal, of course it's only the scientists or researchers in the experiment who demonstrate, find, investigate, etc. The trouble with that is, we would be so literal that we would be un-idiomatic! Similarly, in English, we might say that "this book makes an argument against X" or this "song talks about Y." Again, the more you read English, the more you will develop a sense of the common idioms. There is no substitute for a rigorous habit of reading. Since you acknowledge that you have a lot to learn, then you need to read every single day, and you need to read at least an hour each day.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

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

This is a classic GMAT Q -

All the answers have some flaw and we need to pick the best answer(remember!!.. choose the best answer.)

I choose a process of elimination

I did not really get B rather it was the only one left standing...!!!
Hence B is the aswer.

its B

Reasoning as follows :

Meaning of Sentence is the Hawthorne Works is a series of experiments & these experiments investigate how change in working condition effects worker's performance.

A : It implies as series of experiments would investigate changes in .....
nonsensical to say that series itself investigate hence wrong.

B : Investigating ....
Verb-ing modifier without a comma, modifies preceding noun, which in this case is series of experiments , thus structure wise sentence is correct, In terms of meaning also perfectly fine, as It provides information about these series of experiments .

C : Awkward construction & meaning not clear

D : Sames as A --> Implies that series itself investigate which is wrong

E : In this structure subject is What the effects ...(Phrase) verb is would have wrong as whenever phrase is subject, It must be taken as singular entity, hence singular verb must be use

Hope this help, & experts correct me if i am wrong some where !!

Regards
ST

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
“their” in "investigate changes ... as to their effects" is unclear

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

(C) for investigating what are the effects in workers’ performance that changes in working conditions would cause
the sequence of events is illogical

(D) that investigated changes in working conditions’ effects on workers’ performance
The intended meaning involves “effects of the changes”, but this choice seems to indicate that the conditions themselves haven't changed - only their “effects” have.

(E) to investigate what the effects changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance
"to investigate X" is concise and clear as compared to "to investigate what X is"

First, as Mike Mcgarry pointed out in an earlier post, it's fairly common to take a little license with what performs an action. Stores sell goods. Books make arguments. Experiments investigate effects. Are these sentences literally true? Debatable. While Home Depot doesn't sell you a rake the same way a salesperson would, and books don't tap you on the shoulder and argue with you in a coffee shop, we know what the writer means in those examples, so we wouldn't categorize them as logical errors.

But the more important takeaway here is a strategic one. If you see something that you think is a mistake, but every answer choice contains a variation of this "error," then you need to shift your focus! In this case, none of the answer choices contains an experimenter to do the investigation! In (A),(B), and (D), it's the experiments that investigate, while in (C) and (E), it seems to be the "scene" doing the investigating. Either way, if we can't fix the logical "error," then we have to assume that the construction is acceptable, and move on to other issues.

The takeaway: don't get tunnel vision! Our job isn't to create the perfect sentence, but instead to find the best of the available options. If something is less than ideal, but it appears in every answer choice, we need to have a flexible mindset and accept that "less than ideal" isn't necessarily wrong on the GMAT.

I hope that helps!

Yes, that was a top-notch response above to your original query. I am a bit late to the party, so I will merely comment on (C). First off, I am surprised you did not draw attention to the opening preposition, for. If you compare (B) and (C) side by side, you have to ask yourself, Is "for" necessary? The answer is no, the preposition adds nothing essential to the sentence—an intensive series of experiments investigating works fine on its own. Then, you are correct in saying that what are is floating around without purpose in answer (C). Again, compare to (B), in which investigating the effects conveys everything that the more mealymouthed investigating what are the effects expresses. Strike two. Finally, there is a reversed arrow of causality in (C) that hinders a clear message from being delivered. Whereas (B) mentions causes—in changes—before effects—in workers' performance—(C) begins with the effects and works backwards to the causes. So, while this third issue may not be incorrect in an isolated sentence, it creates a compelling case for a third strike in this particular sentence, especially when compared to (B). In sum:


I hope that helps you feel better about ruling out (C). Thank you for thinking to ask me about it.

- Andrew

We attempted to address this point here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-the-mid-1 ... l#p2520529


It would be nice if we could look at (E) and say, "This sentence is WRONG because of X and Y." But unfortunately, that's just not the case. There's nothing terribly wrong with (E), and that's why we're stuck with the unsatisfying process of comparing (B) and (E) and making little votes for and against each option (as we did in our original explanation).

Is "to investigate" wrong? Is the use of "what" wrong? Maybe not. But does (E) have any advantages over (B)? Is (E) just a more confusing and long-winded way of saying the same thing? If so, go with (B).

Just be careful: it's not a great idea to try to invent rules regarding infinitives and the word "what" that we can mindlessly apply to other questions. That's just not how this test works, unfortunately.

I hope that helps a bit!