Many were in agreement to boycott the department store,

I do not agree with your explanation of D though...I rejected C for the same reasons as you did & selected D

Now I see that D is ambiguous too..

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.

In protest modifies write emails

I guess it should be close to it..right now it is ambiguous to say what it specifically modifies..

This sounds better

Many agreed to boycott the department store and also to write emails in protest to the vice-president of the chain in which they implored him to take action against the unsavory hiring practices.

Experts Please correct me if I am wrong

The main idea is they were in agreement to boycott the stores by writing emails. That takes out D as it uses incorrect style - and is wrong here. E is out because you don't take action against hiring practices.

Even for the same reason I rejected option C.
I selected option D even though 'in protest-in which' combination looks awkward.

Without COMMA '-ing' modifies immediate preceding noun. Here neither Vice-president ( after removing mission critical OF-phrase) nor CHAIN makes sense.

Here none of the option looks correct.
Can any expert clear the doubts about the usage of '-ing' in option C?

I agree with you .. when I was trying I ruled all the options but C is indeed the best ... I regret for choosing D over C

Request veritasprep or any other expert to comment on the usage of verb-ing (imploring) without comma in the choice marked as OA (C)

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. ---were in agreement to boycott --incorrect

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. ---were agreeing to boycott..and even writing makes them parallel (past continuous).This changes the meaning.The meaning is --as a result of agreeing ..many wrote emails.Also "he be implored" is incorrect.People were writing mails imploring..

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. --Correct

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. --Changes meaning.Also "in which" refers to "protest".You do not say "In a protest"
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. --were in agreement that --incorrect.Also if subjunctive is used I think it should be "be boycott" not "be boycotted".Not sure on this but its incorrect.

This seems to be an oversight - there should have been a comma before "imploring". The present participle modifier "imploring him to..." modifies the subject of the previous clause "many", not the adjacent noun "chain".

Many were in agreement to boycott the department store, writing emails in protest to the vice-president of the chain who was implored to take action about the unsavory hiring practices.

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.

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.

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.
--> correct.

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.
--> this sentence does not express the correct order of events.

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.

Hi sayantanc2k

In prompt the meaning conveyed ...They were in agreement to boycott by writing emails.(Not sure if they did or not)
But in C the meaning : they boycotted by writing mail.
there is diff in meaning between Prompt and Answer .
Please help on this.

Hi sobby,

IMO:

Original sentence says vice president was implored. What implored him? The action - "writing of mails".

C correctly says that Many people, who agreed to boycott, wrote emails to president. what did "writing of these mails" do? - Implored the president.

C uses cause and effect correctly. cause is writing and effect is implored. Hence verb-ing should be used for "imploring" not writing.

but in A "comma + verbing" (,writing) incorrectly used. Hence the correct and intended meaning should be that they wrote email and it implored president.

Please let me state that C is faulty in terms of structure. What is the main function here? It is the agreement to boycott. The 'writing' of the emails is a corollary to it. Something that is a result or an impact of the main thing cannot be expressed in a definitive clause containing an action verb. Rather, it should be represented by an adverbial present participle modifier with a comma before.
What is wrong with A? Please note the there a is a typo in choice A. It should be 'who was implored' rather than "he was implored". Refer to the original and you will see the unintended error in 'A'.

The relative pronoun 'who' can be construed to refer to the President, since it is he who is required to take action logically rather than the very chain that is committing the negative practices. That 'who' cannot be used against an intimate thing such as chain is yet another proof that the author intends to refer to the human President by 'who' in fact. Therefore, I would reckon A is the more plausible than C.

Hmm a couple of odd things with this question. Since I'm lazy, let's do the quick split to get to the potential answers before exploring the oddities.

1. Idiom Split : Take action against, NOT take action about/take action on (unless you want to see a man about a dog...)
=> Eliminate A and B.

2. "AND" conundrum: In D, in simplified terms, we have: Many agreed and wrote. This is two actions of parallel importance and the word [and] dictates that. However, we actually want to convey "writing emails" as a consequence of the "agreement".
=> Eliminate D.

3. Passive tense/Meaning/Lonely Pronoun. In E, Many were in agreement that the department store be boycotted, writing protest emails...
In the way it is written..the passive construction "be boycotted" does not indicate the DO-er of the action. Therefore the "many" (people) are not necessarily the ones who are boycotting the department store, it could be goth chicks, iRobots, and perhaps even HouseMD fans. This ultimately changes the intended meaning of the sentence.
If you are not still convinced, "those hiring practices" have no antecedent..so there you go.
=> Eliminate E.

Yes, yes, C has a few odd problems. First of all it's missing a big OLE comma before "imploring". Second, it does shift the primary focus of the sentence from "agreeing to boyscott" to "writing emails". However, in my opinion, this isn't as big of a problem as the others and it certainly still conveys BOTH the CORRECT timeframe of the two ideas and their RELATIONSHIP to each other.



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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.


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).


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.


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.


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

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.
he was implored isn't conveying the right meaning therefore out

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.
he be usage isn't right therefore out

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.
The meaning and the usage is perfect therefore in

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.
They isn't having a right reference it might refer back to the chain or the protestors therefore out

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.
those hiring is akward usage and not conveying the right meaning therefore out


Therefore IMO C

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.