nahid78 wrote:
I can't even understand what is going on here...
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
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
As far as I have learnt the rules...
In A "That" modifies experiments, which can not investigate.
B) again investigating modifies experiments
C) For is wrong usage, and
effects in workers’ performance that changes, I think verb changes should take Subject effects, I don't understand how can this "that" does not modify performance but effects.
D) same as A
E) I rearrange it as " to investigate the effects that changes in changes in working conditions would have....
I am totally confused now after seeing the OA. Can anyone make this rules or strategy clear to me....
mikemcgarry, i hope you won't mind if i continue to tag you. I am sorry if I bother you, but i think you are best man to whom I can ask help.
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 ScoreStudents 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’ performanceFirst 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’ performancesimple, clear--a promising answer
C. for investigating what are the effects in workers’ performance that changes in working conditions would causeThe 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’ performanceNot 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’ performanceThis 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?