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

Hello Everyone!

Let's take a closer look at this question, and tackle one issue at a time! Before we dive in, here is the original question, with any major differences between the options highlighted in orange:

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

After a quick glance over the options, a few key differences pop out:

1. Starting with "stockbrokers" vs. "many people" (modifier-antecedent agreement)
2. Form of the verb "to help": helping / for help to / for help in (verb tense/idioms)
3. How they end: could be easily / could easily have / could have been (verb tense/meaning)

Let's start with #1 on our list because no matter which method we choose, we'll eliminate 2-3 options right away. The modifying phrase, "Not trusting themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of investment opportunities on the market," MUST be immediately followed by who/what it's referring to. In this case, the people hiring stockbrokers are the ones who don't trust themselves to invest properly. Let's see which options correctly place the modifier and antecedent next to each other:

(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

We can eliminate options A & B because they don't place the people who hire stockbrokers next to the modifier phrase. It doesn't make sense to say that the stockbrokers don't trust themselves to buy stocks - that's their job!

Now that we've narrowed it down to 3 options, let's take a look at #2 and #3 on the list, and see which option handles both correctly:

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

This option is INCORRECT because it's redundant. It's not necessary to repeat that people are getting help from stockbrokers - it's clear enough already without the extra addition of a pronoun. It's also not idiomatically correct to say that someone seeks "help to" do something - we say that we seek out "help in" doing something.

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

This is INCORRECT for a couple reasons. First, it's not idiomatically correct to say a person seeks "help to" doing something - they seek "help in" doing something. Second, by using the past tense "could have been," it slightly changes the meaning. It says that people are turning to stockbrokers in the present to buy stocks that were hard to buy in the past, but aren't difficult to buy today?? That doesn't really make sense. They're easy to buy in the present too, but people still hire stockbrokers to help them in the present.

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

This is CORRECT! It uses the correct idiom structure "for help in" doing something, and it uses present tense to say that stocks are easy to buy in the present, but people still hire brokers to help them anyway. The meaning is logical and clear, so this is our best choice.

There you have it - option E is our correct choice!


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-
Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of this sentence is that many people do not trust themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of investment opportunities on the market, so they are turning to stockbrokers for help in buying stocks that could easily be bought directly.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Modifiers + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• In a “phrase + comma + noun” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun; this is one of the most frequently tested concepts on GMAT sentence correction.
• The "adverb + verb" construction is preferred over the "verb + adverb" construction.
• A pronoun can only be used to refer to one noun in a sentence.
• Information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense.
• The present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present.

A: This answer choice incorrectly uses "Not trusting themselves...market" to modify "stockbrokers", incorrectly implying that the stockbrokers do not trust themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of investment opportunities on the market; the intended meaning is that many people do not trust themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of investment opportunities on the market; please remember, in a “phrase + comma + noun” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun. Additionally, Option A uses the "verb ("be" in this sentence) + adverb ("easily" in this sentence)" construction rather than the "adverb + verb" construction; please remember, the "adverb + verb" construction is preferred over the "verb + adverb" construction.

B: This answer choice incorrectly uses "Not trusting themselves...market" to modify "stockbrokers", incorrectly implying that the stockbrokers do not trust themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of investment opportunities on the market; the intended meaning is that many people do not trust themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of investment opportunities on the market; please remember, in a “phrase + comma + noun” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun. Further, Option B incorrectly uses "them" to refer to "stockbrokers" and "they" to refer to "people"; please remember, a pronoun and its derivatives can only be sued to refer to one noun in a sentence. Moreover, Option B incorrectly uses the present perfect tense verb "have bought" to refer to information that is permanent in nature; please remember, information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense, and the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present.

C: This answer choice uses the needlessly wordy phrase "help from them", leading to awkwardness and redundancy; this usage is redundant, as "from them" could be deleted without a loss of clarity. Further, Option C uses the "verb ("be" in this sentence) + adverb ("easily" in this sentence)" construction rather than the "adverb + verb" construction; please remember, the "adverb + verb" construction is preferred over the "verb + adverb" construction.

D: This answer choice incorrectly uses the present perfect tense verb "have...bought" to refer to information that is permanent in nature; please remember, information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense, and the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present.

E: This answer choice correctly uses "Not trusting themselves...market" to modify "many people", conveying the intended meaning - that many people do not trust themselves to choose wisely among the wide array of investment opportunities on the market. Moreover, Option E avoids the pronoun error seen in Option B, as it employs no pronouns. Further, Option E correctly uses the simple present tense verb "be bought" to refer to information that is permanent in nature. Additionally, Option E uses the preferred construction "adverb ("easily" in this sentence) + verb ("be" in this sentence)". Besides, Option E is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

Hence, E is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Simple Continuous Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Phrase Comma Subject" and "Subject Comma Phrase" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

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 The modifier needs to be followed by what is being modified. Logically speaking, it is the people who are not sure that they will choose wisely among the wide array of investments. So, "market," needs to be followed by "many people."

(B) stockbrokers are helping many people who are turning to them for help in buying stocks that they could easily have The modifier needs to be followed by what is being modified. Logically speaking, it is the people who are not sure that they will choose wisely among the wide array of investments. So, "market," needs to be followed by "many people."

(C) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help from them to buy stocks that could be easily The sentence already says that the people are turning to stockbrokers for help. In this case, we do not need to say “from them” because it will be redundant usage.

(D) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help to buy stocks that easily could have been “are turning” implies that the people are going to the stockbrokers now. But “to buy stocks that easily could have been bought directly” refers to stocks that were bought in the past”. Not logical.

(E) many people are turning to stockbrokers for help in buying stocks that could easily be “could easily be bought directly” makes it clear that you are referring to the fact that it is possible to now buy these stocks directly. This explains why the people “are turning” to the stockholders now.

- Nitha

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

(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

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

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

Really understood the point from what you explained. Thanks,

But i feel
I will sing gladly sadly makes no sense. Right?

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.

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 . . .

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.

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?

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.

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: https://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_ ... sacpm.html