Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if

There is an apostrophe on Executives' in answer choice D. 'Being heavily committed to a course of action' is a noun phrase and it is the executives who are heavily committed so we use the possessive form of executives - 'Executive's being heavily committed'. This is probably more easily seen if we use a simpler construction - "Executives' heavy commitment". The 'heavy commitment' is the noun and executives needs the possessive.

The real problem with D is the antecedent shift with "them". The first "them" refers back to executives but the second "them" refers to signs. You can't shift antecedents with pronouns in the same sentence.

KW

E-gmat gave a great explanation of the problem and I am posting in here.



This is a very good advanced level question. It tests your understanding of modifiers and pronouns. It also tests your understanding of the intended meaning of the sentence.

Since most of you were able to eliminate choices A and D, I will concentrate on Choices B, C, and E.

Lets begin the solution:
Step 1 - Read the original sentence and understand the meaning.

Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worried well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

(Note that even though you were all able to eliminate choice A, we still need to review this choice to understand the meaning that the correct choice is intended to communicate).

1. Sentence talks about an executive who is heavily committed to a course of action
2. This course of action has worked well in the past
3. Because of this heavy commitment, the executive is likely to miss the signs of trouble when they appear.
Step 2 - We will understand the errors in this sentence:

Pronoun Error - ..makes it likely to…- “IT” has no clear antecedent. The sentence must specify clearly that executive is likely to miss the signs…
Thus, choice A is eliminated

Step 3 - Process of Elimination or Choice Analysis

Choice B
An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.

This choice changes the intended meaning of the sentence. Here is what this sentence communicates:
1. Executive is heavily committed to a course of action - Same as Intended Meaning
2. Executive makes missing signs of trouble likely - Different from Intended Meaning
Thus, choice B states that executives makes the missing of signs likely, whereas, the intended meaning is that the heavy commitment to the course of action makes missing signs likely.

Choice C

An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past.
This choice does not distort the original meaning of the sentence. However, from this sentence it is not clear as to what has worked well in the past. Thus, this sentence has pronoun reference error for “it”

Choice E

Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
This choice maintains the intended meaning:
1. Action of being heavily committed to a course of action causes the effect.
2. The effect is that the executive misses signs of trouble
Note here that the phrase “being heavily committed to a course of action” is the subject for the verb “is”.

Let me know if this makes sense to you.

Also, I would like to say that please do not reject a choice just because it has the word “being”. You must do a careful analysis of each choice and pick the choice that communicates the intended meaning without any grammatical errors.

For e-GMAT Users, all Sentence Correction questions are solved using a step by step process. These solutions can be found in the 9 Application Files and UGE. (Total of 150+ questions)

In this...we have two antecedents for first "IT" but egmat solution does not point this error. Please somebody explain.

On the GMAT these days you may seen problems that have ambiguous antecedents (i.e. multiple potential antecedents). What the GMAT does consistently point to as an error is when the antecedent shifts within the sentence.

Example: I lost my bike this morning but I later found it, but it made me late for work.
Here the first "it" relates to my bike, but the second "it" is a generalization for losing my bike, not the bike itself. That shifting is incorrect on the GMAT.

KW

Good point, but I have two doubts -
1- "signs of incipient trouble" is similar to "flowers of rose" and we can not refer this phrase (flowers of rose) with "it" - similarly, can we refer "trouble" with "it"??
2- What function " miss signs of incipient trouble" serves in the correct answer option - Adjective or Adverb? And what does this phrase modify or limit?

Following is my response to your question 2:

The phrase " miss signs of incipient trouble" functions somewhat similar to that of direct object of a verb (in this case the verb "make") rather than that of an adverb modifying the verb. "An executive" is the indirect object for the verb.

Compare with the following example:

The people made him president.

him = indirect object
president = direct object.

Could you please elaborate further on your query 1 ? The pronoun "it" can refer to "trouble", but not "signs of trouble", since the latter is plural.

Thanks for asnwering my queries Sayantan; however, I have a follow-up question -

1- Clarification of the first query -
Can a Pronoun refer to a Noun that is a part of a prepositional phrase that acts as an Adjective?

Official example -
Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
Choice C -
C. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past.

Official explanation of answer choice C - "The reference of preposition 'it' is unclear because many nouns have intervened between the appearance of the logical referent(course of action) and 'it' ".

My Doubt - How "it" can refer to "trouble" because "trouble" is a part of a prepositional phrase whose "head" is "signs". And, if "it" can not refer to "trouble", then there is no ambiguity. Why official explanation describes this usage as ambiguous?


2- The direct object of a verb is mostly a Noun phrase, but the phrase " miss signs of incipient trouble" doesn't seem a Noun phrase to me. Could you please help me understand this usage.

Query 1:
There isn't probably any official rule that an object of preposition cannot be referred to by a pronoun. Rather I would cite an example in the contrary:

I was sitting on the top of the table before it broke.

I do not see any problem with the above example in which the pronoun ( blue font) refers to a noun within a prepositional phrase.

(From the official explanation, it can be concluded that GMAT allows the use of pronoun to refer to a noun within a prepositional phrase.)

Query 2:
In option E, "miss" is a verbal and the closest verbal that I can think of is an infinitive. In my opinion this phrase "miss signs of incipient trouble" comes closest to a nominal infinitive phrase used as an object.

In option C, why the use of "it" is incorrect? Course of action is the only logical antecedent to it, replacing it with trouble does not makes sense.

If there are more than one possible antecedents for a pronoun, the sentence would be generally* considered wrong - even when one of the antecedents does not make a logical sense in real life but is grammatically correct in the sentence.

[*However there is an exception to this - When the pronoun is a subject of a clause in the sentence and one of the antecedents is also a subject of a clause, then the subject pronoun would refer to the subject antecedent by virtue of parallelism. Nonetheless, this example is not such a case.]

Hi Anuj,

Thanks for posting your doubt here.

The reason why the pronoun it appears to be ambiguous in Choice C is that apart from course of action, trouble is another singular pronoun in the sentence even though it is not the logical antecedent of it.

However, this is not the error that makes choice C incorrect. Choice C is incorrect because the modifier especially if it has worked well in the past must be placed next to the a course of action.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
A. Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
B. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.
C. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past.
D. Executives' being heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear.
E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.


In A, after come we have 'makes it likely..... 'it' refers to 'heavy commitment'.....'heavy commitment' can not miss sign.....Subject-verb mismatch.... out
In B, after comma we have 'makes missing signs.....'An executive' 'makes missing signs'.........A person misses signs not makes missing signs.......out
In D, after comma we have 'makes them likely......'Executives' being heavily committed' the subject is 'being heavily committed' (for example: 'Ram's umbrella', the subject is 'umbrella')
'them' cannot refer to 'being heavily committed'....out

In C, An executive...............is likely..............do appear, (so far good)
but, in the next part, what does 'it' refers to?
'it' does not refers to any of the nouns. Out

So, E is correct

'Being' is considered highly avoidable, but when ' being' is an integral part of noun phrase, it is good.

In A, 'it' refers to

Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.


A. Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear---- 1. if it …. it may refer to heavy commitment or the course 2. makes it … it refers perhaps to commitment or course or action -- no clear referent for 'it'.


B. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear. --- unparallel around the fanboy 'or'

C. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past. --- if it has …it may refer to course or action or trouble. No clarity.

D. Executives' being heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear. -- 1. no clear referent for 'it' as usual 2. makes them-- 'them' refers to executives but there is no 'executives', only 'executives' is there 3. 'misinterpreting is unparallel with 'miss'. misinterpreting "them" -- them refers to signs - error of one pronoun referring to two different nouns in one clause.


E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear. ----- Correct choice. Being as part of a substantive noun is acceptable. 'them' refers to signs.

A nice question on pronoun reference; also brings out a rare instance in which 'being' is accepted as a correct expression in GMAT

From Ron (Manhattan GMAT Instructor)



* "heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action" is awkward and difficult to read. (You may have to be a native speaker to pick up on this, though)

Much more importantly:

* makes it likely to miss...* (This doesn't work.)

Technically, this would mean that "it" - an unspecified entity - is likely to miss the signs.

If you use the "it is ADJ..." construction, and the verb has a specific subject, you MUST include that subject in the construction. It is likely that the executive will miss...



I've eliminated the modifier in this sentence, simplifying its structure a bit.

Once that modifier is eliminated, notice that you have a sentence that says that the executive him/herself makes missing the signs likely.

"misinterpreting ones" is also wrong. this should be "them", not "ones".

"an executive ... makes xxxx unlikely". That's nonsense; it's the exective's excessive commitment that makes certain undesirable things likely.

"Them" = the same things/people that were mentioned previously. I.e., the use of them specifically indicates that you are NOT further narrowing the group.

"Ones" = used ONLY with a modifier/description that further narrows the group.

E.g., All of the houses were damaged, except the ones farthest from the shoreline.

In most of these cases, "those" can be used instead of "the ones", so, honestly, you won't see "the ones" very often. You'll only see it if it would be impossible (or extremely awkward) to use "those"

e.g., Leather jackets are expensive in general, but the most expensive ones can cost as much as new cars.

First Glance

The entire sentence is underlined. Keep an eye out for Structure, Meaning, Modifier, Parallelism.

Issues

(1) Pronoun: it; them; ones

The original sentence uses the pronoun it (twice!). Check the antecedents for the pronouns found throughout the answers.

In answer (A), the first it refers to the course of action. The second it, though, is a dummy pronoun; it doesn't refer to any particular noun in the sentence. While a dummy pronoun is acceptable in general, the two instances of it don't refer to the same thing. This is considered ambiguous. Likewise, in answer (D), the first instance of them refers to the executives; the second refers to the signs. Eliminate answers (A) and (D) for ambiguity.

Answer (B) changes them to ones. The pronoun ones does still refer to signs, but it refers to different signs. For example: Ava likes most cats, but she finds the ones owned by her next-door neighbour annoying.

The ones are still cats, but they are not the same cats mentioned in the first half of the sentence. The original sentence talks about the same signs, so the meaning in answer (B) is illogical.

Further, in (B), the modifier following ones (likely when they do appear) now applies only to the second set of signs, in the same way that the modifier in Ava's sentence (owned by her next-door neighbour) applies only to the second set of cats. Eliminate answer (B).

In answer (C), the pronoun it seems refer to the closest preceding singular noun, trouble. The trouble has worked well in the past? That's illogical. Because the pronoun it is acting as a subject, the next logical place to check is the subject of the preceding clause: an executive. An executive, though, can't be an it. the logical noun, course of action, is so buried in the early part of the sentence that you may actually have to re-read the sentence in order to find the right noun. Another ambiguous pronoun! Eliminate answer (C).

Meaning

The original sentence conveys a certain meaning: when someone commits heavily to a certain course of action, that person might then overlook signs that this course of action isn't a good idea after all. Check the sentence core:

(A) Heavy commitment makes it likely to miss
(B) An executive makes missing signs likely
(C) An executive is likely to miss signs
(D) Being heavily committed makes them likely to miss signs
(E) Being heavily committed is likely to make an executive miss signs

Answers (A), (C), (D), and (E) all contain logical meanings. Answers (B), though, is problematic. The executive doesn't make this phenomenon likely to happen; rather, heavy commitment to a course of action makes it likely that the executive will miss something. Eliminate answer (B).

(3) Parallelism: X or Y

The sentence contains the parallelism marker or. Check for the correct X or Y parallel structure.

In answer (D), the sentence says makes them likely to miss signs or misinterpreting them. The X form is in the infinitive; the Y form is a participle. Eliminate answer (D) for lack of parallelism.

The Correct Answer

Correct answer (E) conveys an unambiguous meaning (The act of being heavily committed makes an executive likely to miss certain signs) and does not contain any ambiguous pronouns.

Note: The correct answer ends up using the oft-maligned word being. Don't cross off an answer simply because it contains the word being!

The subject of the action "makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear" is the "Executive". Hence looking at the answer choices we can narrow down to C and E (as in the rest of the options the sentence illogically refers to entities other than the executive or the structure changes the meaning). In option C there is a misplaced modifier as "especially if it has worked well in the past" should be placed close to "course of action". Hence the best bet is option E (However I am not a fan of the Being... construction since i thought it was almost always wrong on the GMAT)

A. Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear. 'it' is not referring to anything.

B. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear. It changes the meaning. It is trying to say that executive makes missing sign, but as per the meaning it is teh commitment, which is making him miss signs.

C. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past. This modifier is too far from commitment or course of action. Hence, not a strong answer choice. We will keep this if we donot find anything better.

D. Executives’ being heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear. Blunder. Such constructions are almost always incorrect on GMAT.

E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear. Correct answer choice.