More experienced employees may require higher salaries than companies

Anyone can explain why not option D

Posted from my mobile device

B. experienced employees take half as long to train as new employees do -
in my opinion it holds true for both inference :
. the employee is getting trained
. the employee is training
Shouldn't this be avoided?

Read below

training experienced employees takes half as long as it(training experienced employees) does for new employees.

Hope you know now the problem with D.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Could you please tell me why is Option B preferred over option D

In Option D, "it does", which stands for "training does", also signifies time right?

Hi there,
could you please help me clear my doubt

More experienced employees may require higher salaries than companies want to pay, but it would be wise to remember that experienced employees take half as long as training new employees.

(A) experienced employees take half as long as training new employees
(B) experienced employees take half as long to train as new employees do
(C) training experienced employees take half as long as new employees do
(D) training experienced employees takes half as long as it does for new employees
(E) to train experienced employees takes half as long as for new employees

(B) experienced employees take half as long to train as new employees do - the training is given by the company to the employees right ? so accordingly should the verb be " to be trained " ... the way the AC is written won't that mean exp employees take less time to train (something) that new employees do?


mikemcgarry daagh chetan2u GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo TommyWallach

Aditya

'To train' is a kind literary style of using a dynamic active voice rather than a passive voice of 'to be trained'.

We should not take 'to train' as to mean 'to train something', just because such a meaning can also be taken. If we take the experienced employees take half as long to train something, and then we should parallel it with as "new employees take to train something". However, in logic and practice, no company will allow new employees to train something or some other.

On a funny note, 'to train' may also mean to go by train. Can we take that meaning? It would be too weird to take all the available meanings.

Let us face facts; 'to be trained' is not part of any given choice. Then what will be the answer to this authentic GMAT paper test question?

In option D, does 'it' refer to 'training' or to 'training experienced employees'.
In a broader sense CAN a pronoun refer to just the gerund form of the verb present somewhere in the sentence, or does it have to refer to the entire gerund phrase.

Wulfang It refers to the entire phrase, and that is how this generally works--see my post up top. When we want to refer to just part of a noun phrase, we can sometimes use THAT or THOSE. There are many cases in which that usage won't be clear or parallel enough. For instance, I can't seem to write a valid version of the sentence from this question using THAT. I think we'd only say "that of new employees" if we were referring to a trait they had, not something that is done to them. But there are many ways this form can show up in a correct answer. Two examples:

The pay of experienced employees is greater than that of new employees.
The lights on the Eiffel Tower extend all the way down, unlike those on the Empire State Building.

Hi DmitryFarber AND other Experts,

Complete sentence with Option-E: More experienced employees may require higher salaries than companies want to pay, but it would be wise to remember that to train experienced employees takes half as long as [To train] for new employees.

I selected option-E with the understanding that "TO TRAIN" is implied.
So is option-E incorrect because of the presence of preposition FOR, or am I missing something in my reasoning?

Please guide.

Regards
Rohit

aarkay87

No, we can't do without "to train" if that's what we set up as the basis of comparison. If I say "TO X takes half as long as," I'm committed to saying "TO Y." It might be the same infinitive both times (to train) or two different ones ("To sign a contract is to make a promise"), but once we set up a comparison, we need two comparable terms.

However, if we did have "TO TRAIN" repeated, you're right that "for" would make E wrong. Employees are the object of the action, not part of a modifier, so if I want to compare the time it takes TO TRAIN one set of people, I need to compare it to the time it takes TO TRAIN some other set of people. We're training both groups, not training for them.

AndrewN

Would you like to share your opinion on the issue between the two most popular choices here?

Hello, PyjamaScientist. To avoid recapitulating what DmitryFarber has written above, I would encourage you to experiment with the two iterations of the sentence to see what you come up with.


Both answer choices use the substitute verb to do in some form, so its versatility is not in question. But, assuming that it could stand in for just training, as many people seem to want to do, would the sentence be any clearer or more concise than what we see in (B)? Compare the second half of the sentence:

(B) it would be wise to remember that experienced employees take half as long to train as new employees take [to train]
(D) it would be wise to remember that training experienced employees takes half as long as training takes for new employees

Now, remove the parts that completely overlap to get to the heart of the comparison:

(B) experienced employees take half as long to train as new employees take
(D) training experienced employees takes half as long as training takes for new employees

Notice that there is one repetition in (B) with the verb take, whereas (D) repeats both verbs and nouns in takes and training, respectively. There is also an introduced element in for in the latter that keeps the comparison another step away from being direct, like compared to like. (Why does (D) not start the comparison, training for experienced employees?) In sum, even with an optimal interpretation of (D), one that takes some liberties with the pronoun, it still fails to match up to (B). The clear and concise expression of vital meaning is a cornerstone of SC. Knowledge of grammatical conventions will only get you so far.

Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

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.