GDT wrote:
MentorTutoring Can you pls explain the answer options of this question
Also if A said "action against" instead of 'action about", will it be correct?
Hello,
GDT. I think that there are a number of quality-control issues with the sentence above, a point that has been brought up in previous posts. As presented at the top of the page, the question has zero correct answers. In the interest of helping the community by drawing attention to some of the issues, I will offer my thoughts on each response.
stoy4o wrote:
A. Many were in agreement to boycott the department store, writing emails in protest to the vice-president of the chain he was implored to take action about the unsavory hiring practices.
Yes, as
Daagh pointed out above, the original sentence does contain
who in place of this problematic
he, but even then, we have a missing comma before the pronoun, and the correct idiom is either
take action on or
take action against. We have to go by what is on the screen, not by what we want to be there. With the correct pronoun AND the comma AND the correct idiom, I would say this choice was fine. If you are wondering about that comma concern with the
who clause, remember that you can tell whether the clause is restrictive or non-restrictive by removing it from the sentence. If you can remove it without distorting the meaning of the sentence, then it is non-restrictive.
1) The man, who had one arm, committed the crime. (Conveys that the man committed the crime, but he happened to have one arm, in case you were curious.)
2) The man who had one arm committed the crime. (Conveys that the one-armed man committed the crime, and without that
who clause, the meaning of the sentence changes.)
In the sentence at hand, do we
need to know that it was the VP, as opposed to anyone else,
who was implored to take action? I would argue for the non-restrictive meaning. The VP just happened to have been on the receiving end of these emails.
stoy4o wrote:
B. Many were agreeing to boycott the department store and even writing emails in protest to the vice-president of the chain in order that he be implored to take action on the unsavory hiring practices.
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with the more formal
in order that. However, the context of the sentence suggests that
many people or protestors were
writing emails to implore the VP to take action, NOT to seek a third party to implore the VP on their behalf. Thus,
in order that he be implored makes no logical sense, and it certainly represents a sub-optimal way of expressing a similar notion in (A).
stoy4o wrote:
C. Agreeing to boycott the department store, many even wrote emails in protest to the vice-president of the chain imploring him to take action against the unsavory hiring practices.
There needs to be a comma between the highlighted part above. Although boycotting and writing emails can be seen as separate actions, conveying that some boycotters chose
not to write emails, I think this option is cleaner than what we have seen up to this point.
stoy4o wrote:
D. Many agreed to boycott the department store and also to write emails to the vice-president of the chain in protest in which they implored him to take action against the unsavory hiring practices.
The preposition
in does not really fit in anywhere comfortably, certainly not where it is placed now. It should modify
emails, but without any commas, all we have is a tangled-up mess. The meaning is unclear. Furthermore, although it is a small point, is
also absolutely necessary to express the vital meaning of the sentence? Does it achieve anything that
and does not on its own? Again, you have to go by what is on the screen.
stoy4o wrote:
E. Many were in agreement that the department store be boycotted, writing protest emails to the vice-president of the chain imploring him to take action against those hiring practices considered unsavory.
What does the subjunctive achieve that the simple past and more active
agreed to boycott does not? As a rule, the GMAT™ prefers direct and active constructs to more complex ones. Also,
protest emails may not be the same as writing emails
in protest. It is bad enough that in each sentence, we have to wait to see just what the keyboard warriors are protesting--
unsavory hiring practices--but now we have to sort out the modifier before we even know what
many were writing. This sort of conciseness, with modifiers ahead of the nouns they modify, often works
against answer choices on the GMAT™, since clarity of meaning is the primary consideration. Beyond all this, we still have a missing comma between
chain and
imploring. I would stay away.
In all, I would pick (C) from this lot, but to be honest, I would probably learn what I could from the question and move on altogether.
- Andrew
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.