As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring in

Hi Skywalker18,
I'm not sure that I understand your question. AjiteshArun is totally correct in saying that our situation here is a relative clause. When a relative clause refers to the OBJECT of the previous clause, "that" is optional.

Example 1:
I can't find the shoes that I like.
-> relative clause is "that I like." "I" is the subject of the relative clause, and the shoes (represented also by "that") are the object. So we could also correctly write:
I can't find the shoes I like.

Example 2:
I can't find the shoes that are comfortable.
-> relative clause is "that are comfortable." Here, the shoes are the SUBJECT of the relative clause. So, I cannot leave out "that".

(See for yourself: I can't find the shoes are comfortable??? What?? It's not understandable.)

I can't think of a situation where "that" could join two independent clauses, since "that" would typically make the second clause dependent. But let me know if you have an example.

***

sonusaini1

You asked whether answer C could be a good option if we removed the redundancy.
Well, it would be better than it currently is. But compare it again to our winning answer E.
What's different?

C is wordier because it is passive (sales that in the past would have been conceded to rivals). Meanwhile, E is active (sales it would in the past have conceded to rivals.)

When everything else is equal, prefer the active to the passive. Usually, it makes the sentence shorter and more direct.

***

Best, Jenn

similar question

https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-professor- ... 22418.html

As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments, the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales they would in the past have conceded to rivals.

(A) they would in the past have conceded to rivals -> "They" is incorrect. "the company" requires singular pronoun to refer. Incorrect.
(B) they would have conceded previously to their rivals -> Same as A. Incorrect.
(C) that in the past would have been conceded previously to rivals -> In the past... and previously are redundant. Incorrect.
(D) it previously would have conceded to rivals in the past -> Same as C. Incorrect.
(E) it would in the past have conceded to rivals -> This is the option left.

So, I think E.

Hi Reed / Avi - i am struggling to understand how come "that" can be dropped in this question - I chose C depsite the redudundancy.

In the Manhattan SC guide, the following sentnence is marked wrong

Wrong : I know Meryl streep is an actor
Right : I know THAT Meryl streep is an actor

(Attached below the images from Page 46, SC guide)

How come in the Meryl streep case, "THAT" is needed but in the original question "THAT" can be dropped.

Attached are the pics in the manhattan guide

jabhatta2

I don't know if your query is resolved our not. But I thought I could add two cents.

The example you are quoting from Manhattan SC is talking about essential information.

The first example mentions that
The teacher is confident that her students mastered the lesson. The information after "that" is essential here. Furthermore, that is functioning as a conjunction joining two clauses. Without the "that" the sentence would read "The teacher is confident her students mastered the lesson". We have two independent clauses joined here without anything. This is a big no-no on GMAT. Hence, the usage of "that" is essential here.
The same can be applied to the Meryl Strep example.

I would request BrightOutlookJenn to comment/ critique my analysis.

Now coming to this question. Ellipsis is at play here. A "that" is understood to be repeated.
You could read AjiteshArun's post here for clarity. https://gmatclub.com/forum/as-its-sales-of-computer-products-have-surpassed-those-of-measuring-in-22712.html#p1823797

BrightOutlookJenn

If we remove previously from option C. Isn't it still unclear who in the past conceded to the rivals. Apart from the wordy and passive construction.
Please share your two cents.

My various considerations-
1. 'company' is singular due to use of 'it'. So, A.B are rejected.
2. C is too wordy as it uses 'in the past' and 'previously' to bring across the same point.
3. D has same issue as C. Also makes us think that the company would have conceded to the 'rivals in the past' meaning the rivals who existed in the past but do not exist now. Gives wrong meaning to sentence as it clearly does not comment on rivals' timelines.
4. E- Less wordy, 'it' usage. CORRECT.

previously … in the past is unnecessary repetition. Therefore, D and C are out

The company (antecedent) … market sales THAT (not explicit, because sales are the object, whereas the company is the subject of this sentence) IT (pronoun referring to the company) would… --> E is the winner
A and B also have issues with meaning as the pronoun THEY do not have a proper antecedent to refer to that makes sense.

KarishmaB GMATNinja MartyTargetTestPrep ChrisLele

Kindly explain why in E, "it ... have" is correct?? I thought subject verb agreement would mean "it...has"

Dear desertEagle,
if the verb follows by "modal verb", auxiliary verb, we have to employ only base form of verb.
- She will have a ravishing flight tomorrow
- She would never denies your offer.

Hope it helps.

When we use modal verbs, the action verb appears in base form.

He likes pineapples.
They like pineapples.

but

He may like pineapples.
They may like pineapples.

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Concepts tested here: Pronouns + Awkwardness/Redundancy

A:
1/ This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun "the company" with the plural pronoun "they".

B:
1/ This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun "the company" with the plural pronouns "they" and "their".

C: Trap.
1/ This answer choice redundantly uses "in the past" alongside "previously", rendering it awkward and needlessly wordy; this usage is redundant, as both terms convey the same meaning.

D: Trap.
1/ This answer choice redundantly uses "in the past" alongside "previously", rendering it awkward and needlessly wordy; this usage is redundant, as both terms convey the same meaning.

E: Correct.
1/ This answer choice correctly refers to the singular noun "the company" with the singular pronoun "it".
2/ Option E is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

Hence, E is the best answer choice.

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Is ''Would have conceded '' the correct usage ??? If yes, then how?

Why can't we use ''would concede'' instead ?

T thought that ''would have verb '' can be used in past perfect tense clause.

Please help me with this.. !

RuchitaB

"Would have" is used to create a past hypothetical. You are describing not an action that you HAVE actually taken, but an action that you WOULD HAVE taken had circumstances been different.

"If I had been there, I would have helped you." (I wasn't there, but if I HAD been, then I would have helped.)
"I would have liked this movie when I was a kid." (I didn't see the movie as a kid, but if I could have, I would have liked it.)

In this case, we're talking about CURRENT sales that, had they turned up in the past, the company would have chosen to concede. We can't say "would concede," because the company didn't actually concede these specific sales ("In the past, we would concede sales quite often"), nor are we talking about a future hypothetical ("If I hwere busier, I would concede some of these sales."). The sales are new and current! For similar reasons, I can't say "would help" or "would like" in the examples above.

MartyTargetTestPrep GMATGuruNY IanStewart GMATNinja AjiteshArun DmitryFarber KarishmaB
In the above question in correct option how to independent clauses are not connected properly
the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass
market sales they would in the past have conceded
to rivals.

also would have + verb construction used for hypothetical scenerio.when this construction is correct without conditional statements

Hi saby1410,

That is understood to be there.
1. ... the company has become increasingly willing to compete for the mass market sales {that} it would in the past have conceded to rivals.

The second clause is a dependent clause that refers to the noun the mass market sales.

2. ... the company has become increasingly willing to compete for [the mass market sales that it would in the past have conceded to rivals].

Although we can use would in a conditional statement, there are many other ways to use would. Have a look at this dictionary entry.