GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 23 Oct 2018, 09:40

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 30 Oct 2013
Posts: 26
Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 11 Oct 2018, 08:07
11
66
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  35% (medium)

Question Stats:

66% (00:51) correct 34% (00:54) wrong based on 3052 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of investment opportunities on the market, stockbrokers are helping many people who turn to them to buy stocks that could be easily bought directly.


(A) stockbrokers are helping many people who turn to them to buy stocks that could be easily

(B) stockbrokers are helping many people who are turning to them for help in buying stocks that they could easily have

(C) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help from them to buy stocks that could be easily

(D) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help to buy stocks that easily could have been

(E) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help in buying stocks that could easily be


Verbal Question of The Day: Day 120: Sentence Correction


Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS
For All QOTD Questions Click Here


Stockbrokers


(A) Modifier / Meaning

(B) Modifier / Meaning; Meaning / Redundancy; Pronoun / Meaning

(C) Idiom (for help to buy); Meaning / Redundancy

(D) Idiom (for help to buy)

(E) CORRECT


First glance

The underline starts just after a comma and there’s a clear split: stockbrokers or many people? The meaning of the sentence will dictate which group needs to be placed just after the comma.


Issues

(1) Modifier / Meaning

The sentence begins with an opening modifier, describing people who don’t trust themselves to choose wisely among investment opportunities.

It’s illogical to describe stockbrokers in this way. Rather, many people don’t trust themselves and so turn to stockbrokers for help. Eliminate choices (A) and (B).

(2) Meaning / Redundancy

Answers (B) and (C) both contain redundant wording.

(B) stockbrokers are helping many people who are turning to them for help

In the case of answer (B), it would be enough to say that stockbrokers are helping many people, or possibly that stockbrokers are helping many people who are turning to them.

(C) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help from them

In the case of answer (C), the expression turning to someone for help already means that you are looking for help from that person. For example, it is enough to say that Mary turns to Yong for help. It is redundant to say that Mary turns to Yong for help from him.

(3) Pronoun / Meaning: them; they

The pronoun them appears in answers (A), (B), and (C). The pronoun they appears in choice (B). Check the antecedents.

Answers (A) and (C) are acceptable because the structure of the sentence makes clear that them refers to the stockbrokers (and this is logical, too). In answer (B), them again refers to the stockbrokers, but the they is problematic.

First, the pronoun them implies that a later pronoun of the same case (they) is likely to refer to the same noun. This does not always have to be the case—the referent can change, as long as the sentence structure shows clearly that the second pronoun refers to a different noun.

In this case, though, the they is a subject pronoun and stockbrokers is also the subject of the sentence, so a second clue implies that they refers to stockbrokers. Logically, however, they should be the people, not the stockbrokers. It would be better not to have this ambiguity in the sentence—and, indeed, the correct answer removes these pronouns altogether. Eliminate choice (B) for an ambiguous pronoun.

(4) Idiom: for help to buy

Answers (B) and (E) use the idiom for help in buying. Answers (C) and (D) use the idiom for help to buy. Answer (A) uses a different structure entirely.

The correct idiom is for help in (doing something). Eliminate answers (C) and (D) for using a faulty idiom.

The Correct Answer

Correct answer (E) places the subject, many people, just after the opening modifier, properly signaling who doesn’t trust themselves to choose wisely. It also uses the correct idiom for help in (buying).

Originally posted by thanhmaitran on 23 Aug 2015, 06:43.
Last edited by Bunuel on 11 Oct 2018, 08:07, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Most Helpful Expert Reply
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2039
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2017, 12:47
21
6
Unless you’re brand-new here (and if you are, welcome to GMAT Club!), you probably know that “-ing” modifiers are a pretty common thing on GMAT SC (more on the GMAT’s various uses of “-ing” words here).

In this particular case, if we start the sentence with “not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of investment opportunities…”, we’ll eventually need to follow that phrase with a group of people that wouldn’t actually trust themselves to choose among those investment opportunities…

Quote:
(A) stockbrokers are helping many people who turn to them to buy stocks that could be easily

… and the “stockbrokers” probably aren’t going to make sense here. The stockbrokers presumably trust themselves to choose stocks. So (A) is clearly wrong.

You could also argue that the pronoun “them” is a problem in (A). The most recent plural is “people” – but we know that “them” should logically refer to “stockbrokers” (“stockbrokers are helping many people who turn to [stockbrokers]…”).

I’m not sure that the use of “them” is definitively WRONG, though: the antecedent “stockbrokers” isn’t so far away, and if “them” was referring to “people”, then it would probably say “themselves.” And as you may know, pronoun ambiguity isn’t an absolute rule, anyway.

So you might be able to accept the pronoun “them”, but because of the “-ing” modifier, (A) is out.

Quote:
(B) stockbrokers are helping many people who are turning to them for help in buying stocks that they could easily have

This basically has the exact same error as in (A): literally, this is saying that the stockbrokers don’t trust themselves to pick stocks, and that can’t be right.

(B) also introduces an extra pronoun, “they” – and I think it’s more problematic than the “them.” It’s just getting messy and confusing now: “them” reaches back to “stockbrokers”, but then the next pronoun, “they”, refers back to “people” again? That’s truly confusing. (B) is gone.

Quote:
(C) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help from them to buy stocks that could be easily

We’ve fixed the logic of that “-ing” modifier, but now there are new problems. The biggest problem is that (C) is redundant now: “people are turning to stockbrokers for help from them to buy stocks…” There’s absolutely no reason to say “from them” here. It’s enough to just say “people are turning to stockbrokers for help.”

A much, much smaller issue: the GMAT seems to prefer the idiom “help in buying” over “help to buy.” (A similar official SC question deals with “aid in healing” vs. “aid to heal” – basically the same issue.) Personally, I don’t see any problem with saying “help to buy”, and I wouldn’t cross out (C) based solely on the idiom – but for whatever it’s worth, I suspect that the GMAT sees “help to buy” as incorrect in this question. I’m just not convinced that you’ll ever see this particular idiom ever again, since there are about 25,000 of them in English.

In any case, the redundancy thing is a pretty big issue. (C) is gone.

Let’s put the last two side-by-side, since the differences between them are pretty small:
Quote:
(D) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help to buy stocks that easily could have been
E) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help in buying stocks that could easily be

There are really only two things going on here. First, we have the idiom: “help to buy” in (D), vs. “help in buying” in (E). As we mentioned above, the GMAT seems to prefer “help in buying” – but I again, I wouldn’t bet my life on that.

And in general, I don’t worry much about idioms, unless I’m CERTAIN about them. More on that here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 41848.html

But as we discussed in our beginner’s guide to SC, meaning is a really, really big deal on the GMAT. And the only other difference between (D) and (E) – at the end of the underlined portion – is the key to the question.

In (D), we have “stocks that easily could have been bought directly”, and that doesn’t completely make sense, since it suggests that the stocks could have been bought directly – in the past! Then why is it that people “are turning to stockbrokers” now – in the present progressive tense, which can ONLY be used for an action that’s happening right now?

(E) fixes that problem: it just uses the conditional tense “could easily be bought directly”, which makes much more sense with the fact that people “are turning to stockbrokers” now.

So (E) is the correct answer, even if you don’t pay much attention to the idiom.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1319
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2015, 00:37
15
1
10
Hi Cadaver,

No, you wouldn't want to rewrite E in that way. E is using "easily" to modify "be bought directly." The meaning is that it is easy for people to buy directly. If we move "easily," it is now just modifying "bought." This would mean that what we can do directly is specifically to "easily buy" stocks. It oddly/awkwardly implies that "easy buying" can be direct, but "non-easy buying" cannot. Basically, it violates the order in which we should sensibly apply modifiers. Consider this example:

The movie will soon be shown in Taiwan.

We should be able to move "soon" right next to "shown," right? "The movie will be shown soon in Taiwan." However, putting the two modifiers next to each other at the end confuses the meaning. The meaning of the original was that the movie would be shown in Taiwan, and that this would happen soon. In the rewrite, "in Taiwan" modifies "will be shown soon" or even just "soon" (as opposed to just "shown"). This implies that while it will be shown soon in Taiwan, it might not be shown soon anywhere else.

Here's one other example of how adverb placement can affect meaning:

I will gladly sing sadly. (Correct. "Gladly" modifies "sing sadly." I would be glad to sing in this way.)

I will sing gladly sadly. (Incorrect. I would never write this way, but the most likely meaning would be the opposite of the above. I will sing gladly, but I will be sad while I am doing so.)

The moral of the story is that modifiers are like permutations. Order matters!
_________________


Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Most Helpful Community Reply
Queens MBA Thread Master
avatar
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 170
Concentration: Leadership, General Management
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2015, 06:44
9
5
Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of investment opportunities on the market, stockbrokers are helping many people who turn to them to buy stocks that could be easily bought directly.

Meaning analysis:
1. People do not trust themselves to choose wisely
2. Hence they take help of stock brokers to buy stocks
3. (to buy) Stocks that can be easily bought directly


Error analysis:
1. Misplaced modifier. “Not trusting ..” should modify People – logically, How stockbrokers cannot trust themselves to choose. – Option A gives incorrect meaning



(A) stockbrokers are helping many people who turn to them to buy stocks that could be easily
Incorrect – Explained above.

(B) stockbrokers are helping many people who are turning to them for help in buying stocks that they could easily have
Misplaced modifier. – incorrect (same as A)
It creates even more funny meaning, people are turning to help brockers :P

(C) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help from them to buy stocks that could be easily
“turning to stockbrokers for help from them” – from them seems to be redundant. Even if we remove it still sentence can stand.
Incorrect

(D) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help to buy stocks that easily could have been
“Help to buy” – People are turning to stockbroker for help to buy” , it probably saying People are helping brocker

“Could have been “ – past event, but we need to say about possibility not about what happened – incorrect meaning

(E) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help in buying stocks that could easily be
Correct
General Discussion
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2015
Posts: 389
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2015, 07:59
8
3
vishwaprakash wrote:
Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of investment opportunities on the market, stockbrokers are helping many people who turn to them to buy stocks that could be easily bought directly.

Meaning analysis:
1. People do not trust themselves to choose wisely
2. Hence they take help of stock brokers to buy stocks
3. (to buy) Stocks that can be easily bought directly


Error analysis:
1. Misplaced modifier. “Not trusting ..” should modify People – logically, How stockbrokers cannot trust themselves to choose. – Option A gives incorrect meaning



(A) stockbrokers are helping many people who turn to them to buy stocks that could be easily
Incorrect – Explained above.

(B) stockbrokers are helping many people who are turning to them for help in buying stocks that they could easily have
Misplaced modifier. – incorrect (same as A)
It creates even more funny meaning, people are turning to help brockers :P

(C) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help from them to buy stocks that could be easily
“turning to stockbrokers for help from them” – from them seems to be redundant. Even if we remove it still sentence can stand.
Incorrect

(D) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help to buy stocks that easily could have been
“Help to buy” – People are turning to stockbroker for help to buy” , it probably saying People are helping brocker

“Could have been “ – past event, but we need to say about possibility not about what happened – incorrect meaning

(E) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help in buying stocks that could easily be
Correct


Nice Analysis Viswa.

Just one more point I want to add:

(D) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help to buy stocks that easily could have been

(E) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help in buying stocks that could easily be

Easily is an adverb and is modifying the verb. Try to put the adverb as close as possible to verb.
For Option D) the verb is bought
So the ideal would be "that could have been easily bought".

For option E) it is already ideal.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Oct 2014
Posts: 133
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Technology
GMAT 1: 720 Q48 V40
WE: Engineering (Aerospace and Defense)
Reviews Badge
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Aug 2015, 01:10
TeamGMATIFY wrote:
vishwaprakash wrote:
Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of investment opportunities on the market, stockbrokers are helping many people who turn to them to buy stocks that could be easily bought directly.

Meaning analysis:
1. People do not trust themselves to choose wisely
2. Hence they take help of stock brokers to buy stocks
3. (to buy) Stocks that can be easily bought directly


Error analysis:
1. Misplaced modifier. “Not trusting ..” should modify People – logically, How stockbrokers cannot trust themselves to choose. – Option A gives incorrect meaning



(A) stockbrokers are helping many people who turn to them to buy stocks that could be easily
Incorrect – Explained above.

(B) stockbrokers are helping many people who are turning to them for help in buying stocks that they could easily have
Misplaced modifier. – incorrect (same as A)
It creates even more funny meaning, people are turning to help brockers :P

(C) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help from them to buy stocks that could be easily
“turning to stockbrokers for help from them” – from them seems to be redundant. Even if we remove it still sentence can stand.
Incorrect

(D) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help to buy stocks that easily could have been
“Help to buy” – People are turning to stockbroker for help to buy” , it probably saying People are helping brocker

“Could have been “ – past event, but we need to say about possibility not about what happened – incorrect meaning

(E) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help in buying stocks that could easily be
Correct


Nice Analysis Viswa.

Just one more point I want to add:

(D) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help to buy stocks that easily could have been

(E) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help in buying stocks that could easily be

Easily is an adverb and is modifying the verb. Try to put the adverb as close as possible to verb.
For Option D) the verb is bought
So the ideal would be "that could have been easily bought".

For option E) it is already ideal.



Hi GMATIFY

I have one doubt :

As per your analysis for option, if we have to twist option E, is it safe to assume :-

"many people are turning to stockbrokers for help in buying stocks that could be easily" is better than "many people are turning to stockbrokers for help in buying stocks that could easily be"

I know OG answers are perfect. But just a doubt
Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1130
Location: India
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Aug 2015, 05:16
2
TeamGMATIFY wrote:
vishwaprakash wrote:
Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of investment opportunities on the market, stockbrokers are helping many people who turn to them to buy stocks that could be easily bought directly.

Meaning analysis:
1. People do not trust themselves to choose wisely
2. Hence they take help of stock brokers to buy stocks
3. (to buy) Stocks that can be easily bought directly


Error analysis:
1. Misplaced modifier. “Not trusting ..” should modify People – logically, How stockbrokers cannot trust themselves to choose. – Option A gives incorrect meaning



(A) stockbrokers are helping many people who turn to them to buy stocks that could be easily
Incorrect – Explained above.

(B) stockbrokers are helping many people who are turning to them for help in buying stocks that they could easily have
Misplaced modifier. – incorrect (same as A)
It creates even more funny meaning, people are turning to help brockers :P

(C) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help from them to buy stocks that could be easily
“turning to stockbrokers for help from them” – from them seems to be redundant. Even if we remove it still sentence can stand.
Incorrect

(D) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help to buy stocks that easily could have been
“Help to buy” – People are turning to stockbroker for help to buy” , it probably saying People are helping brocker

“Could have been “ – past event, but we need to say about possibility not about what happened – incorrect meaning

(E) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help in buying stocks that could easily be
Correct


Nice Analysis Viswa.

Just one more point I want to add:

(D) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help to buy stocks that easily could have been

(E) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help in buying stocks that could easily be

Easily is an adverb and is modifying the verb. Try to put the adverb as close as possible to verb.
For Option D) the verb is bought
So the ideal would be "that could have been easily bought".

For option E) it is already ideal.


Just want to add one more point

(D) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help to buy stocks that easily could have been

(E) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help in buying stocks that could easily be

Here the difference between D and E is ‘TO VERB’ VS ‘FOR VERB-ING’

I feel for help in buying stocks is correct as it is idiomatic. People turned to stockbrokers for help in doing sth(activity).
It is not idiomatic to say that People turned to stockbrokers for help to buy stocks.

Since for defines the purpose of doing something and
to buy changes its meaning as to+ verb is intentional.

Please correct me if am wrong or missed anything
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2012
Posts: 30
Schools: NUS '20
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Dec 2015, 00:58
1
Hello Dmitry

I was referring to the MGMAT SC book (page 203, 6th Edition) where the logic for infinitives is explained and I am super confused now. In this question, there is also a split seen b/w "to buy" and "in buying".

Per my understanding from the book, it seems that for "to buy" in this sentence the subject is "many people" who are the ones that will buy stock. Also "Stock" is separately supplied here as the object for the infinitive "to buy" - In this case, why is the use of "to buy" unidiomatic here.

Your help will be really appreciated.

Thank you

DmitryFarber wrote:
Hi Cadaver,

No, you wouldn't want to rewrite E in that way. E is using "easily" to modify "be bought directly." The meaning is that it is easy for people to buy directly. If we move "easily," it is now just modifying "bought." This would mean that what we can do directly is specifically to "easily buy" stocks. It oddly/awkwardly implies that "easy buying" can be direct, but "non-easy buying" cannot. Basically, it violates the order in which we should sensibly apply modifiers. Consider this example:

The movie will soon be shown in Taiwan.

We should be able to move "soon" right next to "shown," right? "The movie will be shown soon in Taiwan." However, putting the two modifiers next to each other at the end confuses the meaning. The meaning of the original was that the movie would be shown in Taiwan, and that this would happen soon. In the rewrite, "in Taiwan" modifies "will be shown soon" or even just "soon" (as opposed to just "shown"). This implies that while it will be shown soon in Taiwan, it might not be shown soon anywhere else.

Here's one other example of how adverb placement can affect meaning:

I will gladly sing sadly. (Correct. "Gladly" modifies "sing sadly." I would be glad to sing in this way.)

I will sing gladly sadly. (Incorrect. I would never write this way, but the most likely meaning would be the opposite of the above. I will sing gladly, but I will be sad while I am doing so.)

The moral of the story is that modifiers are like permutations. Order matters!
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Nov 2015
Posts: 48
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Dec 2015, 03:39
DmitryFarber wrote:
Hi Cadaver,

No, you wouldn't want to rewrite E in that way. E is using "easily" to modify "be bought directly." The meaning is that it is easy for people to buy directly. If we move "easily," it is now just modifying "bought." This would mean that what we can do directly is specifically to "easily buy" stocks. It oddly/awkwardly implies that "easy buying" can be direct, but "non-easy buying" cannot. Basically, it violates the order in which we should sensibly apply modifiers. Consider this example:

The movie will soon be shown in Taiwan.

We should be able to move "soon" right next to "shown," right? "The movie will be shown soon in Taiwan." However, putting the two modifiers next to each other at the end confuses the meaning. The meaning of the original was that the movie would be shown in Taiwan, and that this would happen soon. In the rewrite, "in Taiwan" modifies "will be shown soon" or even just "soon" (as opposed to just "shown"). This implies that while it will be shown soon in Taiwan, it might not be shown soon anywhere else.

Here's one other example of how adverb placement can affect meaning:

I will gladly sing sadly. (Correct. "Gladly" modifies "sing sadly." I would be glad to sing in this way.)

I will sing gladly sadly. (Incorrect. I would never write this way, but the most likely meaning would be the opposite of the above. I will sing gladly, but I will be sad while I am doing so.)

The moral of the story is that modifiers are like permutations. Order matters!


Really understood the point from what you explained. Thanks,

But i feel
I will sing gladly sadly makes no sense. Right?
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1319
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Dec 2015, 03:40
rsaahil90, in terms of our guide, "to buy" is an infinitive of purpose. It doesn't describe a noun; it describes why someone does something. It's hard to say exactly how it works here, because all of the choices that contain "to buy" are grammatically incorrect, but basically people are turning to stockbrokers to buy stocks. In other words, people want stockbrokers to buy on their behalf. You could also say that people want to buy the stock, and they are going to stockbrokers to get this done. In many ways, these are the same thing, since stockbrokers conduct the actual transaction, but the people who go to them are considered the actual buyers.
_________________


Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1319
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Dec 2015, 03:42
neha1993,

As I suggested when I wrote that sentence, I would be unlikely to produce a sentence like "I will sing gladly sadly" in any real context, but the meaning would be this: I will sing in a glad manner, but I will be sad to do so. It would make sense if, for instance, I were forced to sing a happy song while in an unhappy mood. Maybe I received bad news before stepping on stage . . . :cry:
_________________


Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Intern
Intern
User avatar
B
Joined: 09 Nov 2015
Posts: 28
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V29
GMAT 2: 720 Q50 V38
Reviews Badge
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Feb 2017, 20:49
How to differentiate between Option D and Option E?
I read the thread, but I am still not able to understand.
Something to do with later part of the underlined portion and Easily's placement.

Kindly explain. Thank you.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3018
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Feb 2017, 08:40
9
ravi19012015 wrote:
How to differentiate between Option D and Option E?
I read the thread, but I am still not able to understand.
Something to do with later part of the underlined portion and Easily's placement.

Kindly explain. Thank you.


The verb "could have been" implies a past event. If the stock could have been bought directly IN THE PAST, then why people are turning to stock holders NOW to buy those same stocks? Hence this usage gives rise to illogical meaning.

The intended meaning is that people are turning to stockholders rather than buying directly. Hence depicting the latter action ( "buying directly") as a past event is illogical - both should be indicating same time reference. Hence D is wrong.

Note: "could be" used in E is not depicting past - it is the implication of the hypothetical action of buying directly.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Posts: 266
Location: India
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2017, 15:12
DmitryFarber wrote:
Hi Cadaver,

No, you wouldn't want to rewrite E in that way. E is using "easily" to modify "be bought directly." The meaning is that it is easy for people to buy directly. If we move "easily," it is now just modifying "bought." This would mean that what we can do directly is specifically to "easily buy" stocks. It oddly/awkwardly implies that "easy buying" can be direct, but "non-easy buying" cannot. Basically, it violates the order in which we should sensibly apply modifiers. Consider this example:

The movie will soon be shown in Taiwan.

We should be able to move "soon" right next to "shown," right? "The movie will be shown soon in Taiwan." However, putting the two modifiers next to each other at the end confuses the meaning. The meaning of the original was that the movie would be shown in Taiwan, and that this would happen soon. In the rewrite, "in Taiwan" modifies "will be shown soon" or even just "soon" (as opposed to just "shown"). This implies that while it will be shown soon in Taiwan, it might not be shown soon anywhere else.

Here's one other example of how adverb placement can affect meaning:

I will gladly sing sadly. (Correct. "Gladly" modifies "sing sadly." I would be glad to sing in this way.)

I will sing gladly sadly. (Incorrect. I would never write this way, but the most likely meaning would be the opposite of the above. I will sing gladly, but I will be sad while I am doing so.)

The moral of the story is that modifiers are like permutations. Order matters!


Hi DmitryFarber,

Thanks for your post.

The movie will soon be shown in Taiwan.

As you explained, in the above sentence, in Taiwan modifies --will soon be shown

However, I will gladly sing sadly

in the above, gladly modifies sing sadly

What I meant is -- when two verb modifier come together, we put them at the appropriate position to refer correct meaning.

but, in the first sentence, modifier before the verb is attached first to the verb to find the intended meaning

while, in the second sentence, modifier after the verb is attached first to the verb to find the intended meaning.

How do we determine this sequence?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Posts: 266
Location: India
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2017, 16:23
sayantanc2k wrote:
ravi19012015 wrote:
How to differentiate between Option D and Option E?
I read the thread, but I am still not able to understand.
Something to do with later part of the underlined portion and Easily's placement.

Kindly explain. Thank you.


The verb "could have been" implies a past event. If the stock could have been bought directly IN THE PAST, then why people are turning to stock holders NOW to buy those same stocks? Hence this usage gives rise to illogical meaning.

The intended meaning is that people are turning to stockholders rather than buying directly. Hence depicting the latter action ( "buying directly") as a past event is illogical - both should be indicating same time reference. Hence D is wrong.

Note: "could be" used in E is not depicting past - it is the implication of the hypothetical action of buying directly.




Thanks sayantanc2k for the explanation.

However, for this question, choice D is incorrect, "been"(could have been) is correctly used because the sentence is in the passive voice.

I was reading other question in which "could have" (active voice) refers to the current time. Below is the correct form of that sentence.

The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have even greater significance for the economy than do the particulars of the plan.

How can we determine when "could have" refers to the present time when it definitely refers to the past?
Retired Moderator
User avatar
G
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3018
Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Mar 2017, 09:38
2
1
AR15J wrote:
sayantanc2k wrote:
ravi19012015 wrote:
How to differentiate between Option D and Option E?
I read the thread, but I am still not able to understand.
Something to do with later part of the underlined portion and Easily's placement.

Kindly explain. Thank you.


The verb "could have been" implies a past event. If the stock could have been bought directly IN THE PAST, then why people are turning to stock holders NOW to buy those same stocks? Hence this usage gives rise to illogical meaning.

The intended meaning is that people are turning to stockholders rather than buying directly. Hence depicting the latter action ( "buying directly") as a past event is illogical - both should be indicating same time reference. Hence D is wrong.

Note: "could be" used in E is not depicting past - it is the implication of the hypothetical action of buying directly.




Thanks sayantanc2k for the explanation.

However, for this question, choice D is incorrect, "been"(could have been) is correctly used because the sentence is in the passive voice.

I was reading other question in which "could have" (active voice) refers to the current time. Below is the correct form of that sentence.

The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have even greater significance for the economy than do the particulars of the plan.

How can we determine when "could have" refers to the present time when it definitely refers to the past?


In your example the verb is "have". Here "could" depicts a possibility. The usage is similar to the following
They could have significance. (They may have significance)
He could be the captain. (He may be the captain)

"Could have " + participle is always past-
They could have had significance.
He could have been the captain.
Manhattan Prep Instructor
User avatar
S
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1319
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Mar 2017, 12:59
2
AR15J, in both of my examples, the first adverb modifies all that follows. The movie will be shown in Taiwan. When? Soon. I will sing sadly. How? Gladly.

However, to your larger question of how we work with order to determine meaning, it's very complicated! There are some guidelines, many of them things we don't think about explicitly. We also try to work with what seems to be the intended meaning. There are actually people researching this right now, and you can find articles on the subject of, say, how we choose and interpret the order of adjectives. If you're curious, check this out: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_ ... sacpm.html
_________________


Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 30 Dec 2016
Posts: 232
Schools: Schulich
GMAT 1: 650 Q42 V37
GPA: 4
WE: Business Development (Other)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Oct 2017, 07:44
3
Will go with E
A B can be easily eliminated because of modifier error.
Not trusting must modify people and not stockbrokers, because people are not trusting themselves.
C is wordy people are turning to stockbrokers "for help from them"
This can very well be written as turning to stockbrokers for help.
Between D and E there is no idiom error both help in buying/ help to buy are correct idioms.
D has the tense error. Present perfect have been is not correct as the whole sentence is in present tense.
Answer E

Sent from my SM-N9007 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
_________________

Regards
SandySilva


____________
Please appreciate the efforts by pressing +1 KUDOS (:

e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
G
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2709
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 03 Apr 2018, 10:37
5
2
sandysilva wrote:
Will go with E
A B can be easily eliminated because of modifier error.
Not trusting must modify people and not stockbrokers, because people are not trusting themselves.
C is wordy people are turning to stockbrokers "for help from them"
This can very well be written as turning to stockbrokers for help.
Between D and E there is no idiom error both help in buying/ help to buy are correct idioms.
D has the tense error. Present perfect have been is not correct as the whole sentence is in present tense.
Answer E

Sent from my SM-N9007 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app



Hello sandysilva,

You are the only one who has pointed the verb tense error in Choice D that is the real deal breaker.

Choice D uses the verb could have been bought. This verb phrase suggests a possibility of an action that could have happened but actually does not happen. This certainly is not the intended meaning of the sentence.

Per the context of the sentence, many people need help from stockbrokers to buy those stocks that they could actually buy easily.


Hope this helps. :-)
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________












| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com


Originally posted by egmat on 10 Oct 2017, 10:21.
Last edited by egmat on 03 Apr 2018, 10:37, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 23 Jun 2016
Posts: 111
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Oct 2017, 10:57
egmat wrote:
sandysilva wrote:
Will go with E
A B can be easily eliminated because of modifier error.
Not trusting must modify people and not stockbrokers, because people are not trusting themselves.
C is wordy people are turning to stockbrokers "for help from them"
This can very well be written as turning to stockbrokers for help.
Between D and E there is no idiom error both help in buying/ help to buy are correct idioms.
D has the tense error. Present perfect have been is not correct as the whole sentence is in present tense.
Answer E

Sent from my SM-N9007 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app



Hello sandysilva,

You are the only one who has pointed the verb tense error in Choice D that is the real deal breaker.

Choice D uses the verb could have been bought. This verb phrase suggests a possibility of an action that could have happened but actually does not happen. This certainly is not the intended meaning of the sentence.

Per the context of the sentence, the stockbrokers need help to buy those stocks that they could actually buy easily.


Hope this helps. :-)
Thanks.
Shraddha


For the colored portion above, I feel that the intended meaning of the sentence is exactly that -- a possible present situations that have not happened --- for which "could have been" appears to be correct phrase to use.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves &nbs [#permalink] 10 Oct 2017, 10:57

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 34 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of inves

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.