The Life and Casualty Company hopes that by increasing its environment

Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one problem at a time, and get to the correct answer quickly! First, here is the original question with the major differences between each option highlighted in orange:

The Life and Casualty Company hopes that by increasing its environmental fund revenues to $1.2 billion, that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has to use its profits and capital to pay those claims bit by bit, year by year.

(A) that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has
(B) enough has been set aside with which environmental claims can be paid and it will have no longer
(C) it has set aside enough for payment of environmental claims and thus no longer having
(D) enough has been set aside to pay for environmental claims, thus no longer having
(E) it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have

After a quick scan over each option, a couple major differences jump out:

1. How they begin: it has set aside enough / enough has been set aside
2. How they end: no longer has / have no longer / no longer having / no longer have

Let's start with #1 on our list: how they begin. Either way we choose to go with this, we will knock out 2-3 answers right away.

The biggest question we have to ask here is, "WHO is setting aside the money?"

it has set aside enough = "it" is clearly referring back to the company --> the company is setting aside the money
enough has been set aside = there is no clear pronoun referring to the company or anyone else --> UNCLEAR who set aside the money!

Therefore, we can eliminate options B & D because they don't clearly say WHO is setting aside the money for later, which is a problem with clarity!

Now that we're left with only 3 options, let's take a look at #2 on our list: how each option ends!

(A) that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has

This is INCORRECT for a couple reasons. First, the word "that" is unnecessary here and sounds redundant. Second, the verb "has" is present tense, which isn't the best choice to indicate future events (using profits and capital to pay claims). If a sentence says they have "hope" that an action will have positive consequences, they're talking about the future, not the present.

(C) it has set aside enough for payment of environmental claims and thus no longer having

This is INCORRECT because it uses the gerund "having" as a verb, which doesn't work here. It also indicates a present tense action, rather than a future one.

(E) it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have

This is CORRECT! It's clear that the company set aside the payments, thanks to the pronoun "it." It also uses future tense "will have" to indicate the money will go toward future claims payments!


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


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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUYU26AaV54

isn't here 'have' is incorrect?. Shouldn't it be singular verb 'has' here? as the subject is 'The Life and Casualty Company'

Hi HasnainAfxal,
The verb tense used in OA is correct. Will have is future perfect tense and Will + has is incorrect.

Future perfect tense indicates that an action will have been completed (finished or "perfected") at some point in the future.

1. A Republican president will have been in the White House for nearly half of the twenty-first century.
2. By 2025, China will have surpassed the USA as the world's largest economy.

Hope this helps!!

Why E is correct? The company hopes....., It has set aside...... I see two independent clause with only one comma to seperate them.
Please help, thanks

Hi vivickytian1212, there is a that in between.

The company hopes that....it has set aside....

EducationAisle


I was wondering why 2 independent clauses are just connected by a comma in option E.

I dont agree with that "it has..." is a dependent clause marked by subordinating conjunction "that". This is the first time I ever see a question like this. Why would we need a comma in choice E if without comma it makes more sense that the 2nd part is a subordinating clause?

It would make even more sense if "by increasing..." was enclosed with commas. Is "by increasing..." actually modifies "hopes" so to show that it modifies previous verb we put a comma there?

Is this similar situation to "and" + VERB-ING modifier placement of commas to refer to the 1st part or the 2nd part of the sentence modifying.

Thank you

Actually the presence of that (used as a conjunction here) makes the portion after that, a dependent clause.


Perhaps, the following simple sentence would help:

Michael hopes that by working hard, he will be able to score well.

This is a completely valid sentence. Option E has a construct very similar to the above sentence.

Skywalker18 - Thanks.
The use of the "future perfect" here has been really confusing me. My understanding was that for us to use future perfect there should be 2 related events in the future, where the earlier of the 2 events is expressed in "future perfect". This does not apply to this example, as there is only one event in the future.

What am I missing?

Hello,

I am no expert, but I think the usage of “bit by bit, year by year” makes the use of future perfect tense “will no longer have to” preferable.
Maybe GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo mikemcgarry EducationAisle Skywalker18 will be able to exlain it better that why future perfect tense is used here without a second future event.

I don't believe the correct option (option E) is using future perfect tense at all!

From what I know, future perfect tense has the following structure: will + have + past participle

...it will no longer have to use its profits... does not have a past participle.

An example of future perfect tense would be:

I will have left by the time you arrive.

Hi VeritasKarishma EducationAisle

I know we already have meaning issue with option B as it does not clarify who has set aside enough money, and we can use this to eliminate B; however, I wanted to check can we also eliminate B because of comma splice error, It is joining two IC with "and" without using comma (,) "Enough has been set aside..." and "it will no longer have to.."

Hi Rohit, comma splice is when two ICs are connected by just a comma.

In other words, there is no "coordinating conjunction" in case of a comma splice.

Since coordinating conjunction "and" is used in B, it is technically not a "comma splice".

Hi EducationAisle, I guess i am not well versed with terminonology, sorry about that, but while using FANBOYS, isn't it mandatory to use a comma before the conjunction if that conjunction is used to connect two IC as is the case here?

Hi Rohit, in this case, comma will not be justified. Presence/absence of a comma depends on the intended meaning.

Let's take the following two sentences:

(1) By asking questions, Rohit wants to clear this doubts, and he also wishes to reinforce his understanding.

(2) By asking questions, Rohit wants to clear this doubts and he also wishes to reinforce his understanding.

The only difference between these sentences is that there is no comma before and in the second sentence. Let's see what impact this has, on the meaning.

Statement (1) depicts the following:
(1a) By asking questions, Rohit wants to clear this doubts, and
(1b) he also wishes to reinforce his understanding

Statement (2) depicts the following:
By asking questions,
(2a) Rohit wants to clear this doubts and
(2b) he also wishes to reinforce his understanding.

It should be very clear that (1) makes no sense, because "he also wishes to reinforce his understanding" is not a completely independent/unrelated fact, but is actually a consequence of "by asking questions". Hence, sentence (2) is more logical.

I have seen this meaning subtlety getting tested very occasionally on GMAT. Can perhaps dig out an official question.

Check this:
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2014/0 ... -the-gmat/

Yes, when using FANBOYS to connect two complete ICs (with a subject and a verb), we usually use a comma.

But will I reject the option because of it? Perhaps not. I will instead look for something better for example
(E) ...it has set aside ... and will no longer have ...

There is no subject after "and" so it makes sense to not use comma.

Also note that (B) is ... will have no longer to ... which is incorrect.
You cannot separate "have" and "to".

comma+that is always wrong?
",that"