Kritisood
Hi, experts,
daagh VeritasKarishma egmat I rejected all answer choices except A and B because the rest use the additional term
"best junior employees compete"
The OG sentence doesn't mention that ONLY the
best junior employees compete; how can we then assume this? Also, isn't it nonsensical to assume that only the best junior employees would compete in the marketplace? All employees get an equal opportunity to compete but yes the senior employees can def strive to employ the best junior employees. I tried to go for a meaning-based approach. Could someone please shed some light on why my analysis is incorrect?
I agree with you here, Kriti. When I read the sentence, I said to myself,
This is what is happening -
- the senior employees are trying to identify the best junior employees ( notice the use of "strive to identify" - "best" is a subjective trait so might be different for different senior employees)
- the junior employees are competing for the projects they find attractive (again, "attractive" is a subjective trait so might be different for different employees)
So "best" junior employees are competing did not make sense to me. If the sentence were structured differently, say
...where senior employees identify the best junior employees and then the best junior employees compete ...
it would have been fine.
Also, "where" vs "in which", I would prefer "in which" since the marketplace isn't an actual physical location but we do have some leeway here. Where cannot refer to time but here it refers to marketplace so I can live with it.
All in all, given these options, I would have been torn between options (A) and (E). Even though (A) uses a few extra words, those words do clarify the meaning.
Also, "strive and identify" is an absolute no no. They are not doing two things - striving and identifying. There is only one action - striving to identify.