In the mid-1920’s the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company

Dear nahid78,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, I have some bad news for you. It is absolutely impossible to arrive at GMAT SC mastery simply by learning some mythical "complete" set of rules. Yes, there are some rules and some patterns that are important to know, but everything you need to know can't be summarized by rules alone. Apart from rules, you also need to develop instincts for sophisticated writing, and the only way to do this is to develop a habit of reading. See:
How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score

Students labor under the misconception that the GMAT SC is just a test of grammar. In fact, grammar and logic and rhetoric are all equally important. There are some rules for grammar and logic, although there are elements of both that go beyond rules. Rhetoric is much more pattern-based and feeling-based--it's harder to state many "rules" for good rhetoric. Rules are helpful only up to a certain level, and beyond that, searching for the "right" rule obscures what's important.

OK, let's look at this problem:
In the mid-1920’s the Clyde Fan Factory of the Bosch Manufacturing Company was the scene of an intensive series of experiments that would investigate changes in working conditions as to their effects on workers’ performance.

A. that would investigate changes in working conditions as to their effects on workers’ performance
First of all, one thing that is odd is the hypothetical statement, "would investigate." This is not the form we would use for reporting a simple historical fact. Also, the construction "as to their effects" sounds particularly stilted and excessively formal. The GMAT SC prefers formal language, but that's a little over-the-top.

B. investigating the effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance
simple, clear--a promising answer

C. for investigating what are the effects in workers’ performance that changes in working conditions would cause
The construction "experiments for investigating" is not outright wrong, but a odd. After all, all experiments are "for investigating" something. What's really awkward about this is the wordy indirect backward organization. Notice that it puts the effects at the beginning and the cause at the end: the logical order is to flow from cause to effect. It's not automatically wrong to put the effects first, but it would have to be done skillfully. Here, the effect is very awkward and indirect---it's a rhetorical train wreck!

D. that investigated changes in working conditions’ effects on workers’ performance
Not bad, but it's a little awkward because it's so compressed. Concision is a good thing, rhetorically: saying something in a long wordy way is bad, but it's also a problem to be too short. Notice that after the verb "investigated," there is a pile-up of nouns with no verb. There's cause-and-effect action taking place there, but no verb for that action. It's not "wrong," but awkward---not the way a skilled writer would communicate the idea.

E. to investigate what the effects changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance
This opens with an infinitive of purpose. This one would be pretty good, except for the hypothetical verb "would have." This sentence is not about something hypothetical: it's about a real historical situation, in which real conditions had effects on real workers. As in (A), the hypothetical verb tense doesn't reflect the historical reality.

The only possible answer would be (B). This is a hard question!

Does all this make sense?
Mike

although i didn't understand well, thanks for your suggestions.

I have another question- You said in option E "would have is hypothetical", I think understanding such differences requires more practice, but is there any indication though which an inept student like can understand the differences. And one more thing, In B) does "investigating" modify the company? if so how to understand such usage?
Thanks isn't enough.

In the mid-1920’s the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company was the scene of an intensive series of experiments that would investigate changes in working conditions as to their effects on workers’ performance.

(A) that would investigate changes in working conditions as to their effects on workers’ performance

(B) investigating the effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance

(C) for investigating what are the effects in workers’ performance that changes in working conditions would cause

(D) that investigated changes in working conditions’ effects on workers’ performance

(E) to investigate what the effects changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance

hello,
i option B, singular verb "changes" refers to which subject?

This thing is painful. Good luck to us.


The word “that” always jumps out at me (more on the GMAT’s uses of “that” in this article), but I don’t think it’s doing anything wrong here: “that would investigate changes…” just modifies the “series of experiments.” No worries there.

There are plenty of other issues with (A), though. For starters, “their” isn’t quite as clear as I’d like it to be: “their” could refer to “changes in working conditions” or just “working conditions” or maybe even “experiments”. Pronoun ambiguity isn’t an absolute rule on the GMAT, and I don't think that “their” is WRONG here. But we can probably do better.

A clearer reason why (A) is wrong is the conditional verb “would investigate.” The series of experiments actually investigated those changes, so the conditional doesn’t make sense here.

Finally, I don’t think that the phrase “investigated changes… as to their effects on workers’ performance” is very direct. Why wouldn’t we just say that the experiments “investigated the effects of changes…” instead of doing this wordy, weird thing that suggests that the experiments investigated the changes themselves?

So we have plenty of pretty good reasons to eliminate (A).


(B) cleans up most of the issues that we had with (A). We don’t have any pronoun problems now, and the meaning is much clearer in general: now the experiments investigate “the effects” of changes – and that makes much more sense than investigating the changes themselves, as (A) suggested.

I’m also OK with the use of the “-ing” adjective, “investigating”, as a modifier for the “series of experiments.” (More on the GMAT’s various uses of “-ing” words in this article.)

You might also be wondering about the use of the conditional in (B). I had a problem with it in (A), because it’s a fact that the experiments actually investigated the effects of changes in working conditions; the conditional, as placed in (A), made no sense. But in (B)? The use of the conditional is in a different spot, and now it's fine: the experiments investigated the potential effects of changes in working conditions, so the phrase “effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance” is completely appropriate. Even if it sounds funny.

So let’s keep (B).


(C) is a hot mess, and it feels like the GMAT is just clowning us with this one. It’s so messy that it’s hard to even explain why it’s such a s#!t-show. Here’s a list of objections:

1. It’s awfully awkward to say “series of experiments for investigating.” No, the series of experiments actually investigated something, so “series of experiments that investigated” or “series of experiments investigating” are both fine, but “for investigating” wouldn’t work.

2. There’s no reason to include the words “what are” in this sentence; “investigating the effects” would be enough...

3. … Except that “effects in workers’ performance” makes no sense at all. I can’t even figure out what that phrase literally means.

4. “effects… that changes… would cause” is arguably redundant. If we’re already calling something an “effect”, then it’s hard to argue that we really need to restate the word “cause.”

I can’t believe I spent this much time thinking about (C). I’m mad at myself now. Moving on…


This is the answer choice that most of my students seem to fall in love with! (And you probably already know that you shouldn’t fall in love on GMAT verbal questions.) The problem here isn’t grammatical, though: it’s just that the meaning gets a little bit warped.

Let’s think about the intended meaning of the sentence: the experiments investigated the effects of “changes in working conditions”, right? The company changed working conditions, and then examined how those changes affected worker performance.

But (D) is saying something slightly different: the experiments “investigated changes in working conditions’ effects.” That’s wrong! We’re not interested in changes in the effects on workers’ performance -- the working conditions change, not the effects themselves.

Tricky, huh? So (D) is out.

Let’s line our last two options up side-by-side, to make it a little bit easier to see why (E) is wrong:

These two aren’t terribly different from each other. For starters, I think it’s a little bit clearer to just use the “-ing” adjective “investigating” to modify the “series of experiments” – there’s no reason to say “to investigate” in this case. I wouldn’t eliminate (E) based SOLELY on that issue, but it’s a small strike against (E).

The other problem with (E) is the phrase “what the effects changes…” At the very least, that’s awkward AF. You could also argue that the word “what” is just a waste of space: the experiments investigated “the effects”, so why stick “what” in there? It just doesn’t make any sense.

So (B) is the best we can do.

Dear GMATNinja Thank you for the explanation. Could you please tell me if "that" in the choice B is a connector or a pronoun modifier? If "that" is a modifier why changes is plural? Can not understand the sentence structure properly, even though I answered correctly. Please help. Thanks.

(B) investigating the effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance

In the mid-1920’s the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company was the scene of an intensive series of experiments that would investigate changes in working conditions as to their effects on workers’ performance.

(A) that would investigate changes in working conditions as to their effects on workers’ performance

(B) investigating the effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance

(C) for investigating what are the effects in workers’ performance that changes in working conditions would cause

(D) that investigated changes in working conditions’ effects on workers’ performance

(E) to investigate what the effects changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance

Source : GMATPrep Default Exam Pack

(B) investigating the effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance

(C) for investigating what are the effects in workers’ performance that changes in working conditions would cause

Hi AndrewN VeritasKarishma AjiteshArun

My main confusion is on matching effects with singular or plural after “that”

Example:
We have to investigate the effects that medicine does on humans

Question1:
“That” here acts as modifier or subordinate clause ?


Is it Wrong?
Because (effects (plural) doesn’t match with DOES (singular) )- WRONG

Or
Is it Correct?
Because a medicine can bring multiple effects on humans. What is role of “that” in such a case.

Note:
Learnt usage of that from here: - subordinating clauses with “that” vs "that" as a modifier


Question2:
Usually that as sub-ordinating clause come after verb( modifies verb) .
I told him that you have to do high performance. ( told what? – told that you xxx ce.)
2. Can you share example of that as sub-ordinate clause but modifies noun?


Question3: I choose C confidentially and rejected B . But found I am wrong. please correct my thinking.
Due to my above confusion, I could not choose B and marked C because I could understand the expression more clearly.



i.
Effects that ?
Would have on workers’ performance
( what changes in working conditions is doing)
Or
ii.
effects that
changes in working conditions ( not investigate the effects that changes in working conditions but need to investigate the effects on workers performance)
would have on workers’ performance
So b should be wrong because of i or ii. Hence i rejected B.



for investigating
what are the effects in workers’ performance
that changes in working conditions ( modifies effects )
would cause ( verb for effects- correct)

It expressed the meaning clearly so I choose C.


please suggest.

Hi mSKR,

Let's change the does to has:

We have to investigate the effects that medicine has on humans.

1. The answer to your question is: both. The two categories are not exclusive, as a lot of subordinate clauses act as modifiers. In this case, that introduces a subordinate clause, and that entire subordinate clause acts as a modifier (for the noun effects).

In this particular sentence, there is a subject after that (medicine). The verb within the that-clause will agree with this subject.

We have to investigate the effects that medicine has on humans.

Even though that points to effects, look at what that clause is meant to be read as:

medicine has (effects) ← That is, it is not the effects that "have" or "has" something. It is medicine that "has effects".

This changes if we don't have a subject after that:

... the side effects that have been observed

We can read the clause as:

(the side effects) have been observed ← In this case, it is the side effects that "have been observed", and therefore the have agrees with side effects.

2. In your sentence itself, the that introduces a subordinate clause that modifies a noun (that refers to effects).

3. The most important thing here is that changes is a noun (in this case). This means that there is a subject after the that, and we should not try to make the noun before the that pair with the verb after the that.

investigating the effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance

We can read that clause as:

changes in working conditions would have (effects on worker's performance) ← Again, it is not the effects that "would have" something. The effects are what the changes "would have".

(C) for investigating what are the effects in workers’ performance that changes in working conditions would cause

Yeah, this is a tricky little question. It's true that "investigating" (or any other "-ing" modifier) will often modify an entire clause, but I don't actually think it's true in this case.

In (B), I'm comfortable saying that "investigating" is just an adjective that modifies "series of experiments." There's some finesse involved here, to be fair: sure, a modifier can "reach back" through a bunch of prepositional phrases, but in general, the modifier is going to be as close as possible to thing it's modifying. So with any noun modifier -- that, which, "-ing", or anything else -- your first thought should be that it modifies the preceding noun. If that doesn't make sense, see if there's something else "behind" a prepositional phrase that would make sense. But don't assume that the modifier is always reaching way back across several prepositions. That can happen, but it shouldn't be your first thought.

(D) isn't all that different from (B) in terms of the meaning of the modifier: "that investigated changes" modifies the nearest noun, "series of experiments" or just "experiments." That seems OK.

The trickier thing is the meaning difference between (B) and (D). In (D), what, exactly, is the thing that changes? The effects (of working conditions) change -- not the working conditions themselves. In (B), the working conditions actually change -- and the researchers are figuring out the effects of those changes on workers' performance.

Does that help at all?

Thanks Sir for explaining so clearly .

B is pretty clear. I am still confused with C



C rejected in above posts because :
1. what are -is redundant : But we can't say it as wrong.
example: for investigating what were the tests Yes, its better to say for investigating the tests. can we keep on hold for this one?
or
strongly reject : because what are doesn't fit anywhere.

read as: what are changes in working conditions would cause the effects in workers’ performance?

Please confirm.

2. are / would cause - Does verb not agree with each other?
will be --> would cause is right?
are --> would cause is definitely wrong?

3. performance that changes in working conditions -- even changes in working conditions modifies performance, what's wrong with that? Yes performance would vary with working conditions? so we can keep this also on hold?

4. we can read as: changes in working conditions would cause effects in workers' performance ?
cause effects : can not be together? right? - so this must be wrong? please clarify.
cause effects in workers performance - wrong?
or
have effects on workers' performance - right?
is 4 a strong reason to reject?

5. Any other error that can be used to reject C?

Please give your comments AjiteshArun AndrewN for C.

In the mid-1920’s the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company was the scene of an intensive series of experiments that would investigate changes in working conditions as to their effects on workers’ performance.

(B) [1] investigating [2] the effects that [3] changes in working conditions [3] would have on workers’ performance
(C) [1] for investigating [2] what are [3] the effects in workers’ performance that changes in working conditions [3] would cause

So the verb "would" in (B) in for "effects" and not "working conditions"?

This thing is painful. Good luck to us.


The word “that” always jumps out at me (more on the GMAT’s uses of “that” in this article), but I don’t think it’s doing anything wrong here: “that would investigate changes…” just modifies the “series of experiments.” No worries there.

There are plenty of other issues with (A), though. For starters, “their” isn’t quite as clear as I’d like it to be: “their” could refer to “changes in working conditions” or just “working conditions” or maybe even “experiments”. Pronoun ambiguity isn’t an absolute rule on the GMAT, and I don't think that “their” is WRONG here. But we can probably do better.

A clearer reason why (A) is wrong is the conditional verb “would investigate.” The series of experiments actually investigated those changes, so the conditional doesn’t make sense here.

Finally, I don’t think that the phrase “investigated changes… as to their effects on workers’ performance” is very direct. Why wouldn’t we just say that the experiments “investigated the effects of changes…” instead of doing this wordy, weird thing that suggests that the experiments investigated the changes themselves?

So we have plenty of pretty good reasons to eliminate (A).


(B) cleans up most of the issues that we had with (A). We don’t have any pronoun problems now, and the meaning is much clearer in general: now the experiments investigate “the effects” of changes – and that makes much more sense than investigating the changes themselves, as (A) suggested.

I’m also OK with the use of the “-ing” adjective, “investigating”, as a modifier for the “series of experiments.” (More on the GMAT’s various uses of “-ing” words in this article.)

You might also be wondering about the use of the conditional in (B). I had a problem with it in (A), because it’s a fact that the experiments actually investigated the effects of changes in working conditions; the conditional, as placed in (A), made no sense. But in (B)? The use of the conditional is in a different spot, and now it's fine: the experiments investigated the potential effects of changes in working conditions, so the phrase “effects that changes in working conditions would have on workers’ performance” is completely appropriate. Even if it sounds funny.

So let’s keep (B).


(C) is a hot mess, and it feels like the GMAT is just clowning us with this one. It’s so messy that it’s hard to even explain why it’s such a s#!t-show. Here’s a list of objections:

1. It’s awfully awkward to say “series of experiments for investigating.” No, the series of experiments actually investigated something, so “series of experiments that investigated” or “series of experiments investigating” are both fine, but “for investigating” wouldn’t work.

2. There’s no reason to include the words “what are” in this sentence; “investigating the effects” would be enough...

3. … Except that “effects in workers’ performance” makes no sense at all. I can’t even figure out what that phrase literally means.

4. “effects… that changes… would cause” is arguably redundant. If we’re already calling something an “effect”, then it’s hard to argue that we really need to restate the word “cause.”

I can’t believe I spent this much time thinking about (C). I’m mad at myself now. Moving on…


This is the answer choice that most of my students seem to fall in love with! (And you probably already know that you shouldn’t fall in love on GMAT verbal questions.) The problem here isn’t grammatical, though: it’s just that the meaning gets a little bit warped.

Let’s think about the intended meaning of the sentence: the experiments investigated the effects of “changes in working conditions”, right? The company changed working conditions, and then examined how those changes affected worker performance.

But (D) is saying something slightly different: the experiments “investigated changes in working conditions’ effects.” That’s wrong! We’re not interested in changes in the effects on workers’ performance -- the working conditions change, not the effects themselves.

Tricky, huh? So (D) is out.

Let’s line our last two options up side-by-side, to make it a little bit easier to see why (E) is wrong:

These two aren’t terribly different from each other. For starters, I think it’s a little bit clearer to just use the “-ing” adjective “investigating” to modify the “series of experiments” – there’s no reason to say “to investigate” in this case. I wouldn’t eliminate (E) based SOLELY on that issue, but it’s a small strike against (E).

The other problem with (E) is the phrase “what the effects changes…” At the very least, that’s awkward AF. You could also argue that the word “what” is just a waste of space: the experiments investigated “the effects”, so why stick “what” in there? It just doesn’t make any sense.

So (B) is the best we can do.

Can we use "effects" with plural? I mean shouldn't we use "effect" with plural and "effects" with singular. I am a little bit confused on this one