NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 01:24 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 01:24
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
L
BillyZ
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1174
Own Kudos [?]: 20709 [212]
Given Kudos: 926
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Sloan '23 (D) Tuck '23 (D) Darden '23 (D) Ross '23 (D) Kellogg '23 (D) Wharton '23 (D) Booth '23 (D) Fuqua '24 (A) Harvard '24 (D) Stanford '24 (D)
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V40 (Online)
GPA: 3.53
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   21 Sep 2019, 01:09
14
Kudos
198
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

65% (01:51) correct 35% (01:57) wrong based on 6343 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to turn to outside professional counselors to help resolve disagreement.

(A) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to
(B) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that might have in the past led to its dissolution, executives likely will
(C) conflicts plague a small company, which in the past it might have led to the business’s dissolution, executives are liable to
(D) conflicts, which in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, plague a small company, executives are liable to
(E) conflicts, which in the past might have led to its dissolution, plague a small company, executives tend to


SC06561.01
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
A
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
L
daagh
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Status: enjoying
Posts: 5265
Own Kudos [?]: 42103 [52]
Given Kudos: 422
Location: India
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Re: When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   22 Sep 2019, 03:23
25
Kudos
27
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Top Contributor
When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to turn to outside professional counselors to help resolve disagreement.

(A) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to
(B) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that might have in the past led to its dissolution, executives likely will
(C) conflicts plague a small company, which in the past it might have led to the business’s dissolution, executives are liable to
(D) conflicts, which in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, plague a small company, executives are liable to
(E) conflicts, which in the past might have led to its dissolution, plague a small company, executives tend to

The first entry point is the inappropriate adjective 'liable'. Liable 'as per custom' is used only to denote some bad things, such as in 'liable to fall down' or 'liable to be ambushed by enemies' etc. It is not used in such cases as when somebody turns to some normal course in the ordinary of business of life. Therefore, let's first dump C and D.

In E, the pronoun 'its' has no antecedent.

Both A and B use correctly the appositive 'conflicts' to pinpoint the possible damage by the feuds and therefore are the contenders.

However, B uses both 'when' and l'ikely will' for a simultaneous occurrence of the cause and effect.

A by virtue of using 'when' and the present tense 'are likely' is a clear winner.
User avatar
B
GMATIntensive
Manager
Manager
Joined: 22 Jan 2020
Posts: 67
Own Kudos [?]: 1731 [44]
Given Kudos: 1
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V47
Send PM
When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   18 Jul 2020, 23:22
28
Kudos
16
Bookmarks
Sentence Analysis




The sentence talks about the response of executives to a certain situation. The situation is that bitter managerial conflicts happen in a small company - the kind of conflicts that were significant enough that they could have led to the dissolution of the business in the past. What do executives do in such a situation? They are likely to seek outside professional help to resolve the disagreement.

The sentence is correct as is.

Option Analysis


A. conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to
Correct.

B. the caffeine intake of children of various age groups in the United States ranges from 36 to 58 percent of the average amount consumed by adults
Incorrect. The use of the future tense “will turn” makes the sentence into a prediction rather than observation or a general rule as stated in the original sentence. For example, the below two sentences communicate different meanings:
    1. If a small company faces financial troubles, it asks the government for help.
    2. If a small company faces financial troubles, it will ask the government for help.

The first sentence presents a general rule or observation. On the other hand, the second sentence provides a prediction. Given the context, the original sentence presented as a general rule makes much more sense than this option presented as a prediction.

The second issue with this option is a very subtle one. The placement of “in the past” in this option leads to a significantly inferior meaning than the meaning presented in the original option (Please note that we are saying that this option is wrong because it presents an ‘inferior’ meaning, not because it presents a meaning different from the meaning presented in the original option. We do not believe that an option can be wrong just because it presents a meaning different from the one presented in the original sentence). To understand the issue here, let’s consider the below sentences.

    1. In the past, Joe might have responded to your provocation in a violent way.
    2. Joe might have in the past responded to your provocation in a violent way.
    3. Joe might have responded to your provocation in a violent way.

We believe that statements 2 and 3 above mean the same while statement 1 has a different meaning. Statement 1 indicates that Joe currently doesn’t respond in a violent way. Statements 2 and 3 just talk about a possibility in the past and do not give any indication of the present situation. Do you see the difference?

If you don’t, don’t worry! It took us also a lot of time to see this difference. If you see the difference, you can appreciate that the phrase “in the past” is redundant in statement 2.

Coming out of the analogy to our given option, we can see that given the context of the sentence, we should communicate a meaning parallel to the meaning communicated in statement 1 above. Option B is parallel to statement 2 above and hence suffers from redundancy and has an inferior meaning.

C. conflicts plague a small company, which in the past it might have led to the business’s dissolution, executives are liable to
Incorrect. For the following reasons:

    1. There is no antecedent for “it”. If “it” refers to the company, the sentence wouldn’t make sense.
    2. The construction “liable to” is used in two ways:
      a. To mean “legally required to”
      b. To mean “likely to” in case of adverse consequence. For example, if you don’t care, you are liable to fall.

Neither of these two ways makes any sense in the given context.

D. conflicts, which in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, plague a small company, executives are liable to
Incorrect. For the following reasons:

    1. The second error of option C

    2. The use of “the business” is not appropriate since no business has been mentioned before the use of this phrase; “a small company” is mentioned only later in the sentence.

E. conflicts, which in the past might have led to its dissolution, plague a small company, executives tend to
Incorrect. The use of “its” is incorrect because its antecedent needed to appear before the pronoun. The reason the antecedent of “its” needs to appear before the pronoun is that this pronoun is within a non-essential modifier.


We believe that the reason many people don’t mark option A is that they become unsettled on seeing the repetition of “conflicts”. However, such repetition while framing Noun+Noun modifiers is pretty common. We’ll suggest that students brush up their knowledge of Noun+Noun modifiers (also known by a more technical name, Absolute Phrases).
General Discussion
avatar
P
Shobhit7
Manager
Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2017
Posts: 246
Own Kudos [?]: 346 [4]
Given Kudos: 148
Send PM
Re: When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   21 Sep 2019, 03:56
4
Kudos
(A) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to: IMO, CORRECT
(B) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that might have in the past led to its dissolution, executives likely will: WRONG TENSE
(C) conflicts plague a small company, which in the past it might have led to the business’s dissolution, executives are liable to: MEANING CHANGE
(D) conflicts, which in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, plague a small company, executives are liable to: SAME AS C
(E) conflicts, which in the past might have led to its dissolution, plague a small company, executives tend to: ESSENTIAL INFO PLACED AS NON-ESSENTIAL CLAUSE / BESIDES, PRONOUN 'ITS': DISSOLUTION OF BUSINESS (ORIGINAL SENTENCE) MAY NOT NECESSARILY MEAN DISSOLUTION OF THE COMPANY.
User avatar
P
gmatt1476
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2017
Posts: 318
Own Kudos [?]: 19727 [13]
Given Kudos: 50
Send PM
Re: When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   22 Sep 2019, 10:00
4
Kudos
8
Bookmarks
hazelnut wrote:
When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to turn to outside professional counselors to help resolve disagreement.

(A) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to
(B) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that might have in the past led to its dissolution, executives likely will
(C) conflicts plague a small company, which in the past it might have led to the business’s dissolution, executives are liable to
(D) conflicts, which in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, plague a small company, executives are liable to
(E) conflicts, which in the past might have led to its dissolution, plague a small company, executives tend to


SC06561.01


Official Explanation

Logical predication; Rhetorical construction

The sentence is in order as it stands; the best answer choice is option A. The other four answer choices have significant errors.

A. Correct. This choice is the best answer. It contains neither the errors in the other choices nor any other errors.

B. The placement of the adverbial phrase in the past creates redundancy because have already indicates a past tense. Placing the phrase in the past preceding might, as in choice A, indicates that the adverbial phrase correctly modifies the entire verb might have led. But likely will . . . is common in speech and somewhat informal; in a formal writing context, are likely to, as in choice A, is better.

C. This construction appears to make it the subject and which the object of the verb led, but the pronoun it has no logically plausible referent. Liable is sometimes used informally as a synonym of likely, but in formal written English, it is typically used only where the potential outcome is undesirable. In this sentence, likely is rhetorically a better choice.

D. The phrase the business is inappropriate given that no business has, by this point, been mentioned. The verb plague is too far removed from its subject conflicts, making the sentence awkward and difficult to read.

E. The possessive adjective its is meant to refer to a small company and could only do so if a company had already been mentioned. The verb plague is too far removed from its subject conflicts, making the sentence awkward and difficult to read.

The correct answer is A.
User avatar
D
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
EMPOWERgmat Instructor
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 1691
Own Kudos [?]: 14673 [8]
Given Kudos: 766
Send PM
Re: When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   18 Feb 2020, 12:13
3
Kudos
5
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one thing at a time, and narrow down our options quickly so we know how to answer questions like this when they pop up on the GMAT! To begin, let's take a quick look at the question and highlight any major differences between the options in orange:

When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to turn to outside professional counselors to help resolve disagreement.

(A) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to
(B) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that might have in the past led to its dissolution, executives likely will
(C) conflicts plague a small company, which in the past it might have led to the business’s dissolution, executives are liable to
(D) conflicts, which in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, plague a small company, executives are liable to
(E) conflicts, which in the past might have led to its dissolution, plague a small company, executives tend to

After a quick glance over the options, we have a couple places we can focus on:

1. The modifier phrases / phrases between commas (meaning, pronouns, clarity, agreement)
2. executives likely will / are liable to / tend to

Let's actually start with #2 on our list: likely will / are liable to / tend to. The phrase "liable to" is typically only reserved for negative experiences (I am liable to fail my exam / The dog was liable to roll in the mud right after his bath). Since the actions the executives take aren't necessarily negative, it's not appropriate to say they are "liable to" hire outside counselors to fix their problem. In fact, taking those actions can be considered a positive thing! Let's eliminate options C & D because the phrase "liable to" doesn't convey the intended meaning.

Now that we have it narrowed down to 3 options, let's tackle #1 on our list. We need to make sure that the modifiers aren't causing any problems. Some of them contain pronouns, so we also need to watch out for those. Here's how each of our options works out:

(A) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to

This is CORRECT! There aren't any vague pronouns, the meaning is clear, and there aren't any issues with the formality of it.

(B) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that might have in the past led to its dissolution, executives likely will

This is INCORRECT for a couple reasons. First, the adverbial phrase "in the past" is in the wrong place. By placing it after the past tense verb "might have" isn't necessary - the past tense very already cues us in that this took place in the past. Placing it before the verb, as in option A, keeps it from being redundant. Second, there is a vague pronoun "its" in this phrase too! It isn't 100% clear if "its" is referring back to the company or the conflicts. Remember - if it's not 100% clear, consider the pronoun vague.

(E) conflicts, which in the past might have led to its dissolution, plague a small company, executives tend to

This is INCORRECT for a couple reasons. First, it's not a good idea to separate the subject (conflicts) from the verb (plague) this much. It makes the sentence confusing for readers, which is a big no-no on the GMAT - and in business writing. Second, there's a pronoun "its" that doesn't refer back to anything. The sentence doesn't mention the company prior to this point, so you cannot use a pronoun to refer to it yet. Pronouns can only refer BACKWARD, not FORWARD.


There you have it - option A was the correct choice all along!


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.
User avatar
S
abhishekmayank
Manager
Manager
Joined: 26 Apr 2016
Posts: 209
Own Kudos [?]: 48 [3]
Given Kudos: 6
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
Send PM
When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   29 Jul 2020, 22:37
3
Kudos
Hi All,

I find it strange that sometime we become too sacrosanct about something to even complaint about it.

True, A is officially correct answer choice. Accepted.

When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to turn to outside professional counselors to help resolve disagreement.

Could anyone explain that if the highlighted part is an appositive modifier - as explained in so many replies - why is it not following the noun modifier touch rule ? Why this appositive modifier is placed too far to the modified one "conflicts" in the sentence ? Whereas the official explanation has been gracefully accepted that it is awkward in the option E that subject "conflicts" and the verb "plague" is placed too far with each other, as if it is bolt from the blue. There are umpteen examples in both official and non-official questions where the subjects and verbs are not coupling together side-by-side, but rather placed apart with some sentence fragments. Are we overlooking the fact the OG itself constructs such sentences in which it places subject and verb far apart to hide the S-V agreement ?

Experts, could you please pitch in ? Thanks for your consideration !!

AjiteshArun
VeritasKarishma
daagh
GMATNinja
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14822
Own Kudos [?]: 64907 [5]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   03 Aug 2020, 03:31
5
Kudos
Expert Reply
abhishekmayank wrote:
Hi All,

I find it strange that sometime we become too sacrosanct about something to even complaint about it.

True, A is officially correct answer choice. Accepted.

When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to turn to outside professional counselors to help resolve disagreement.

Could anyone explain that if the highlighted part is an appositive modifier - as explained in so many replies - why is it not following the noun modifier touch rule ? Why this appositive modifier is placed too far to the modified one "conflicts" in the sentence ? Whereas the official explanation has been gracefully accepted that it is awkward in the option E that subject "conflicts" and the verb "plague" is placed too far with each other, as if it is bolt from the blue. There are umpteen examples in both official and non-official questions where the subjects and verbs are not coupling together side-by-side, but rather placed apart with some sentence fragments. Are we overlooking the fact the OG itself constructs such sentences in which it places subject and verb far apart to hide the S-V agreement ?

Experts, could you please pitch in ? Thanks for your consideration !!

AjiteshArun
VeritasKarishma
daagh
GMATNinja


The purpose of language is to communicate clearly. There are millions and millions of ideas that need to be communicated. There are few absolute rules (such as subject verb agreement) because different circumstances require to be handled differently.
We don't give you "rules" because "logic" trumps "rules" any day! This means that you cannot use some mechanical set of rules on every question.

Appositive modifiers usually appear right next to what they are modifying so that there is no confusion regarding what they are modifying.
But in option (A) there is anyway no confusion.

(A) When managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, ...

The noun modifier renames the noun that it is modifying. We know it is talking about managerial conflicts. It tells us more about these conflicts - what would happen in the past.
The whole thing is relevant to conflicts that plague a small company. These conflicts could lead to dissolution of the business.

(E) When managerial conflicts, which in the past might have led to its dissolution, plague a small company, ...
What does "its" refer to?
If I am going to tell you something extra about managerial conflicts, I can't use a pronoun which refers to nothing. 'Its' is inside a non essential modifier. They need to convey a complete meaning at the time they are said. They cannot depend on the rest of the sentence since they are not an integral part of the sentence.

When managerial conflicts, conflicts among top managers, ... (makes sense)
When managerial conflicts, which in the past might have led to its dissolution, ... (doesn't make sense)

You cannot connect a non essential modifier to the rest of the sentence. The non essential modifier only tells you more about what it is modifying in the current context. It needs to make sense when it is said. It is said as an aside - "on a side note".
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14822
Own Kudos [?]: 64907 [3]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   17 Aug 2020, 22:42
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Genoa2000 wrote:
BillyZ wrote:
When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to turn to outside professional counselors to help resolve disagreement.

(A) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to

(B) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that might have in the past led to its dissolution, executives likely will


SC06561.01


VeritasKarishma could you please help me here?

ARE LIKELY TO vs LIKELY WILL

What is the difference between the two highlighted portions above?

Is the second one informal and always INCORRECT on the GMAT?


No point comparing phrases in isolation.

When A happens, B happens. - Correct

When A happens, B will happen. - 'When' already shows some point in the future. You don't need to use will.

There could be a question in which the use of "likely will" is the best available option. It will depend on what options you have.
avatar
B
Rachit4126
Intern
Intern
Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 35
Own Kudos [?]: 15 [0]
Given Kudos: 72
Location: India
Schools: IMD '21
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   02 Oct 2020, 18:32
CJAnish VeritasKarishma GMATNinja

Is the usage of which in Option C Correct? IMO Which is wrong here since it tries to modify Conflicts but it cannot jump over the verb PLAGUE? PLs share your views.
User avatar
L
CrackverbalGMAT
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Posts: 4946
Own Kudos [?]: 7626 [0]
Given Kudos: 215
Location: India
Send PM
Re: When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   13 Oct 2020, 10:25
Top Contributor
Rachit4126 wrote:

Is the usage of which in Option C Correct? IMO Which is wrong here since it tries to modify Conflicts but it cannot jump over the verb PLAGUE? PLs share your views.


Hi Rachit

"Which", in most of the cases, modifies the noun or noun idea which is closest to it (immediately preceding). For example:

She broke her leg, which is why she was unable to go to work. This is incorrect as the reason for her being unable to go to work was not her leg but the fact that her leg broke.

Rahul returned the book, which had some pages missing, to the store. This is correct as it is the "book" that had pages missing.

In option (C), "which" modifies the noun "company" as it is closest to that. This is incorrect as the clause following "which" refers to "conflicts". Hence option (C) is incorrect. Hope this helps,
avatar
S
mba757
Current Student
Joined: 15 Jun 2020
Posts: 319
Own Kudos [?]: 81 [0]
Given Kudos: 245
Location: United States
Schools: Darden '24 (A) Fuqua '24 (WL) Kellogg '24 (D)
GPA: 3.3
Send PM
When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   13 May 2021, 10:03
Hi VeritasKarishma

Can a pronoun never come before its antecedent? Or is it JUST [that a pronoun can't come before its antecedent] when the pronoun is in a nonessential modifier? I feel like it makes logical sense, but I also feel like I saw other questions in which a pronoun DID come before its antecedent and it was still grammatically and logically okay.

VeritasKarishma wrote:
abhishekmayank wrote:
Hi All,

I find it strange that sometime we become too sacrosanct about something to even complaint about it.

True, A is officially correct answer choice. Accepted.

When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to turn to outside professional counselors to help resolve disagreement.

Could anyone explain that if the highlighted part is an appositive modifier - as explained in so many replies - why is it not following the noun modifier touch rule ? Why this appositive modifier is placed too far to the modified one "conflicts" in the sentence ? Whereas the official explanation has been gracefully accepted that it is awkward in the option E that subject "conflicts" and the verb "plague" is placed too far with each other, as if it is bolt from the blue. There are umpteen examples in both official and non-official questions where the subjects and verbs are not coupling together side-by-side, but rather placed apart with some sentence fragments. Are we overlooking the fact the OG itself constructs such sentences in which it places subject and verb far apart to hide the S-V agreement ?

Experts, could you please pitch in ? Thanks for your consideration !!

AjiteshArun
VeritasKarishma
daagh
GMATNinja


The purpose of language is to communicate clearly. There are millions and millions of ideas that need to be communicated. There are few absolute rules (such as subject verb agreement) because different circumstances require to be handled differently.
We don't give you "rules" because "logic" trumps "rules" any day! This means that you cannot use some mechanical set of rules on every question.

Appositive modifiers usually appear right next to what they are modifying so that there is no confusion regarding what they are modifying.
But in option (A) there is anyway no confusion.

(A) When managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, ...

The noun modifier renames the noun that it is modifying. We know it is talking about managerial conflicts. It tells us more about these conflicts - what would happen in the past.
The whole thing is relevant to conflicts that plague a small company. These conflicts could lead to dissolution of the business.

(E) When managerial conflicts, which in the past might have led to its dissolution, plague a small company, ...
What does "its" refer to?
If I am going to tell you something extra about managerial conflicts, I can't use a pronoun which refers to nothing. 'Its' is inside a non essential modifier. They need to convey a complete meaning at the time they are said. They cannot depend on the rest of the sentence since they are not an integral part of the sentence.

When managerial conflicts, conflicts among top managers, ... (makes sense)
When managerial conflicts, which in the past might have led to its dissolution, ... (doesn't make sense)

You cannot connect a non essential modifier to the rest of the sentence. The non essential modifier only tells you more about what it is modifying in the current context. It needs to make sense when it is said. It is said as an aside - "on a side note".
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14822
Own Kudos [?]: 64907 [2]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   14 May 2021, 01:25
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
samgyupsal wrote:
Hi VeritasKarishma

Can a pronoun never come before its antecedent? Or is it JUST [that a pronoun can't come before its antecedent] when the pronoun is in a nonessential modifier? I feel like it makes logical sense, but I also feel like I saw other questions in which a pronoun DID come before its antecedent and it was still grammatically and logically okay.

VeritasKarishma wrote:
abhishekmayank wrote:
Hi All,

I find it strange that sometime we become too sacrosanct about something to even complaint about it.

True, A is officially correct answer choice. Accepted.

When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to turn to outside professional counselors to help resolve disagreement.

Could anyone explain that if the highlighted part is an appositive modifier - as explained in so many replies - why is it not following the noun modifier touch rule ? Why this appositive modifier is placed too far to the modified one "conflicts" in the sentence ? Whereas the official explanation has been gracefully accepted that it is awkward in the option E that subject "conflicts" and the verb "plague" is placed too far with each other, as if it is bolt from the blue. There are umpteen examples in both official and non-official questions where the subjects and verbs are not coupling together side-by-side, but rather placed apart with some sentence fragments. Are we overlooking the fact the OG itself constructs such sentences in which it places subject and verb far apart to hide the S-V agreement ?

Experts, could you please pitch in ? Thanks for your consideration !!

AjiteshArun
VeritasKarishma
daagh
GMATNinja


The purpose of language is to communicate clearly. There are millions and millions of ideas that need to be communicated. There are few absolute rules (such as subject verb agreement) because different circumstances require to be handled differently.
We don't give you "rules" because "logic" trumps "rules" any day! This means that you cannot use some mechanical set of rules on every question.

Appositive modifiers usually appear right next to what they are modifying so that there is no confusion regarding what they are modifying.
But in option (A) there is anyway no confusion.

(A) When managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, ...

The noun modifier renames the noun that it is modifying. We know it is talking about managerial conflicts. It tells us more about these conflicts - what would happen in the past.
The whole thing is relevant to conflicts that plague a small company. These conflicts could lead to dissolution of the business.

(E) When managerial conflicts, which in the past might have led to its dissolution, plague a small company, ...
What does "its" refer to?
If I am going to tell you something extra about managerial conflicts, I can't use a pronoun which refers to nothing. 'Its' is inside a non essential modifier. They need to convey a complete meaning at the time they are said. They cannot depend on the rest of the sentence since they are not an integral part of the sentence.

When managerial conflicts, conflicts among top managers, ... (makes sense)
When managerial conflicts, which in the past might have led to its dissolution, ... (doesn't make sense)

You cannot connect a non essential modifier to the rest of the sentence. The non essential modifier only tells you more about what it is modifying in the current context. It needs to make sense when it is said. It is said as an aside - "on a side note".


Yes, you can use a pronoun before its antecedent.

Until he reached home, Andy was ...

The problem here is that the non essential modifier does not make sense if it uses a pronoun without an antecedent. As I pointed out before, the non essential modifier only tells you more about what it is modifying in the current context. It needs to make sense when it is said. It is said as an aside - "on a side note". Once it is said, it is over. We don't try to connect it with the rest of the sentence.
Also, don't rely on "rules" in grammar. It is about what makes sense in context and what are the available options.
avatar
B
bahruz1992
Intern
Intern
Joined: 30 Mar 2020
Posts: 19
Own Kudos [?]: 10 [0]
Given Kudos: 34
Send PM
Re: When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   24 Sep 2021, 08:35
GMATIntensive wrote:
Sentence Analysis




The sentence talks about the response of executives to a certain situation. The situation is that bitter managerial conflicts happen in a small company - the kind of conflicts that were significant enough that they could have led to the dissolution of the business in the past. What do executives do in such a situation? They are likely to seek outside professional help to resolve the disagreement.

The sentence is correct as is.

Option Analysis


A. conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to
Correct.

B. the caffeine intake of children of various age groups in the United States ranges from 36 to 58 percent of the average amount consumed by adults
Incorrect. The use of the future tense “will turn” makes the sentence into a prediction rather than observation or a general rule as stated in the original sentence. For example, the below two sentences communicate different meanings:
    1. If a small company faces financial troubles, it asks the government for help.
    2. If a small company faces financial troubles, it will ask the government for help.

The first sentence presents a general rule or observation. On the other hand, the second sentence provides a prediction. Given the context, the original sentence presented as a general rule makes much more sense than this option presented as a prediction.

The second issue with this option is a very subtle one. The placement of “in the past” in this option leads to a significantly inferior meaning than the meaning presented in the original option (Please note that we are saying that this option is wrong because it presents an ‘inferior’ meaning, not because it presents a meaning different from the meaning presented in the original option. We do not believe that an option can be wrong just because it presents a meaning different from the one presented in the original sentence). To understand the issue here, let’s consider the below sentences.

    1. In the past, Joe might have responded to your provocation in a violent way.
    2. Joe might have in the past responded to your provocation in a violent way.
    3. Joe might have responded to your provocation in a violent way.

We believe that statements 2 and 3 above mean the same while statement 1 has a different meaning. Statement 1 indicates that Joe currently doesn’t respond in a violent way. Statements 2 and 3 just talk about a possibility in the past and do not give any indication of the present situation. Do you see the difference?

If you don’t, don’t worry! It took us also a lot of time to see this difference. If you see the difference, you can appreciate that the phrase “in the past” is redundant in statement 2.

Coming out of the analogy to our given option, we can see that given the context of the sentence, we should communicate a meaning parallel to the meaning communicated in statement 1 above. Option B is parallel to statement 2 above and hence suffers from redundancy and has an inferior meaning.

C. conflicts plague a small company, which in the past it might have led to the business’s dissolution, executives are liable to
Incorrect. For the following reasons:

    1. There is no antecedent for “it”. If “it” refers to the company, the sentence wouldn’t make sense.
    2. The construction “liable to” is used in two ways:
      a. To mean “legally required to”
      b. To mean “likely to” in case of adverse consequence. For example, if you don’t care, you are liable to fall.

Neither of these two ways makes any sense in the given context.

D. conflicts, which in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, plague a small company, executives are liable to
Incorrect. For the following reasons:

    1. The second error of option C

    2. The use of “the business” is not appropriate since no business has been mentioned before the use of this phrase; “a small company” is mentioned only later in the sentence.

E. conflicts, which in the past might have led to its dissolution, plague a small company, executives tend to
Incorrect. The use of “its” is incorrect because its antecedent needed to appear before the pronoun. The reason the antecedent of “its” needs to appear before the pronoun is that this pronoun is within a non-essential modifier.


We believe that the reason many people don’t mark option A is that they become unsettled on seeing the repetition of “conflicts”. However, such repetition while framing Noun+Noun modifiers is pretty common. We’ll suggest that students brush up their knowledge of Noun+Noun modifiers (also known by a more technical name, Absolute Phrases).


In option (A), "conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business" modifies "conflicts". Why in this case "touch rule" does not work? We have told that a noun and its modifier SHOULD TOUCH each other.
User avatar
L
EducationAisle
CEO
CEO
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 3675
Own Kudos [?]: 3528 [1]
Given Kudos: 149
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Send PM
Re: When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   24 Sep 2021, 08:55
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
bahruz1992 wrote:
In option (A), "conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business" modifies "conflicts". Why in this case "touch rule" does not work? We have told that a noun and its modifier SHOULD TOUCH each other.

You might want to Google resumptive modifiers.
User avatar
L
Fdambro294
VP
VP
Joined: 10 Jul 2019
Posts: 1392
Own Kudos [?]: 542 [0]
Given Kudos: 1656
Send PM
When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   01 Aug 2022, 00:11
Answer choice A includes a modifier that some writers call a “resumptive modifier.”

Here is a pretty decent link to a discussion:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/i-studied-mo ... ml#p741761

And here is a link to a very good website with a lot of general information on formal written English:
https://www.thoughtco.com/resumptive-mo ... ar-1692049

https://natureofwriting.com/courses/int ... modifiers/

Ignoring all the fancy language, the idea is that the modifier starts off with the same word mentioned earlier in the sentence in order to add more descriptive details. As such, you could argue that the “touch rule” is not violated in the sense that the description still follows the referenced noun phrase.

Examples:

“Within the next decade, we could meet our energy needs with solar power, needs that will soar as our population grows.”

In effect, the insertion of “needs” before the noun modifier picks up (i.e., resumes) from the point at which the word appears earlier in the sentence. The effect is to add more descriptive information……and ultimately to make a sentence correction problem that much more difficult. 😀

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
S
Sneha2021
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2020
Posts: 287
Own Kudos [?]: 30 [1]
Given Kudos: 496
Location: India
Send PM
Re: When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   01 Dec 2022, 09:15
1
Kudos
KarishmaB

Hi Karishma,

How to reject B?
(B) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that might have in the past led to its dissolution, executives likely will
When conflicts ...., executives likely will - The sentence meaning-wise makes sense.
When - Does it convey past, present or future tense? I think "when" doesn't convey any time.
If "when" conveys present, "will" is not redundant.

Thank you :)
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14822
Own Kudos [?]: 64907 [0]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   01 Dec 2022, 22:56
Expert Reply
Sneha2021 wrote:
KarishmaB

Hi Karishma,

How to reject B?
(B) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that might have in the past led to its dissolution, executives likely will
When conflicts ...., executives likely will - The sentence meaning-wise makes sense.
When - Does it convey past, present or future tense? I think "when" doesn't convey any time.
If "when" conveys present, "will" is not redundant.

Thank you :)


One problem with (B) is its use of 'its'. Option (A) clarifies that it is talking about dissolution of the business so I like it better.
Even if I do assume that 'its' refers to 'small company,' option (B) uses first conditional.

First Conditional:

If A happens, B will happen.
This is predictive. What will happen if this happens in the future. Then it makes more sense if we were to talk about one specific company.
If conflicts arise in this company, executives will likely ...

We are predicting here. This is what will happen if that happens.

Zero Conditional:

For general statements about the future, for habitual statements, we use zero conditionals.

If A happens, B happens.
So it makes more sense to say: When conflicts plague a small company, executive are likely to ...

So that's another reason to prefer (A).
User avatar
B
AbhishekDhanraJ72
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Apr 2020
Posts: 185
Own Kudos [?]: 18 [0]
Given Kudos: 2218
GMAT 1: 620 Q45 V30
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   17 Mar 2023, 00:36
EMPOWERgmatVerbal wrote:
Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one thing at a time, and narrow down our options quickly so we know how to answer questions like this when they pop up on the GMAT! To begin, let's take a quick look at the question and highlight any major differences between the options in orange:

When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to turn to outside professional counselors to help resolve disagreement.

(A) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to
(B) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that might have in the past led to its dissolution, executives likely will
(C) conflicts plague a small company, which in the past it might have led to the business’s dissolution, executives are liable to
(D) conflicts, which in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, plague a small company, executives are liable to
(E) conflicts, which in the past might have led to its dissolution, plague a small company, executives tend to

After a quick glance over the options, we have a couple places we can focus on:

1. The modifier phrases / phrases between commas (meaning, pronouns, clarity, agreement)
2. executives likely will / are liable to / tend to

Let's actually start with #2 on our list: likely will / are liable to / tend to. The phrase "liable to" is typically only reserved for negative experiences (I am liable to fail my exam / The dog was liable to roll in the mud right after his bath). Since the actions the executives take aren't necessarily negative, it's not appropriate to say they are "liable to" hire outside counselors to fix their problem. In fact, taking those actions can be considered a positive thing! Let's eliminate options C & D because the phrase "liable to" doesn't convey the intended meaning.

Now that we have it narrowed down to 3 options, let's tackle #1 on our list. We need to make sure that the modifiers aren't causing any problems. Some of them contain pronouns, so we also need to watch out for those. Here's how each of our options works out:

(A) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that in the past might have led to dissolution of the business, executives are likely to

This is CORRECT! There aren't any vague pronouns, the meaning is clear, and there aren't any issues with the formality of it.

(B) conflicts plague a small company, conflicts that might have in the past led to its dissolution, executives likely will

This is INCORRECT for a couple reasons. First, the adverbial phrase "in the past" is in the wrong place. By placing it after the past tense verb "might have" isn't necessary - the past tense very already cues us in that this took place in the past. Placing it before the verb, as in option A, keeps it from being redundant. Second, there is a vague pronoun "its" in this phrase too! It isn't 100% clear if "its" is referring back to the company or the conflicts. Remember - if it's not 100% clear, consider the pronoun vague.

(E) conflicts, which in the past might have led to its dissolution, plague a small company, executives tend to

This is INCORRECT for a couple reasons. First, it's not a good idea to separate the subject (conflicts) from the verb (plague) this much. It makes the sentence confusing for readers, which is a big no-no on the GMAT - and in business writing. Second, there's a pronoun "its" that doesn't refer back to anything. The sentence doesn't mention the company prior to this point, so you cannot use a pronoun to refer to it yet. Pronouns can only refer BACKWARD, not FORWARD.


There you have it - option A was the correct choice all along!


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


Working hard for his dream, Abhishek study everyday. Here pronoun his refer backward. Please explain your explanation further???

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
B
munindra95
Intern
Intern
Joined: 01 Sep 2021
Posts: 38
Own Kudos [?]: 15 [0]
Given Kudos: 19
Location: India
Schools: ISB '25 (A) IIMA PGPX'25 (D)
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V39
GPA: 08.45
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink] New post   06 Aug 2023, 22:31
@e-gmat
Please confirm the reason for E's elimination.
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: When bitter managerial conflicts plague a small company, conflicts [#permalink]
06 Aug 2023, 22:31
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions