A mutual fund having billions of dollars in assets will typically inve

A mutual fund having billions of dollars in assets will typically invest that money in hundreds of companies, rarely holding more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation.

(A) companies, rarely holding more than one percent

The clause 'rarely holding...' correctly modifies the subjet 'mutual fund.'

(B) companies, and it is rare to hold at least one percent or more

Here the 'it' is vague and unnecessary.

(C) companies and rarely do they hold more than one percent

Who is the 'they'? If we are referring to the companies than doing so is misleading. The original sentence makes it clear the mutual fund is doing the holding.

(D) companies, so that they rarely hold more than one percent

Same as (C).

(E) companies; rarely do they hold one percent or more

Once again, the misleading 'they.'
_________________

A simple open and shut case. ‘A mutual fund’ is singular and the use of ‘they’ is subject –pronoun mismatch. Therefore, C, D, and E are gone. Between A and B, the word 'at least' distorts the meaning in B. 'Rarely holding more than one percent' is not the same 'rarely holding at least one percent'. So A
_________________

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of this sentence is that a mutual fund having billions of dollars in assets will typically invest that money in hundreds of companies, and as a result, it will rarely hold more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Verb Forms + Pronouns + Grammatical Construction + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• Semicolons and the “comma + conjunction” construction are used to link two independent clauses; commas are used to link an independent clause with a dependent one; comma cannot be used to join two independent clauses.
• The introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “holding” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.

A: Correct. This answer choice avoids the pronoun error seen in Options C, D, and E, as it uses no pronouns. Further, Option A uses the phrase "rarely holding...corporation"; the use of the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "holding" in this sentence)" construction conveys the intended meaning - that a mutual fund having billions of dollars in assets will typically invest that money in hundreds of companies, and as a result, such a mutual fund will rarely hold more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation; remember, the introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “holding” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship. Additionally, Option A correctly uses a comma to join the independent clause "A mutual fund having...companies" with the dependent clause "rarely holding...corporation". Besides, Option A is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

B: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the clause "and it is rare...corporation"; the construction of this clause incorrectly implies that it is rare for anyone to hold more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation; the intended meaning is that it is rare for a mutual fund having billions of dollars in assets to hold more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation. Further, Option B uses the needlessly wordy phrase "at least one percent or more", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

C: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun "A mutual fund" with the plural pronoun "they". Further, Option C alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "and rarely do they hold...corporation"; the construction of this phrase incorrectly implies that a mutual fund having billions of dollars in assets will typically invest that money in hundreds of companies, and as a separate action, it will rarely hold more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation; the intended meaning is that a mutual fund having billions of dollars in assets will typically invest that money in hundreds of companies, and as a result, it will rarely hold more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation. Additionally, Option C incorrectly uses conjunction ("and" in this sentence) to join the independent clauses "A mutual fund having...companies" and "rarely do they hold...corporation"; please remember, semicolons and the “comma + conjunction” construction are used to link two independent clauses.

D: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun "A mutual fund" with the plural pronoun "they". Further, Option D alters the meaning of the sentence through the clause "so that they...corporation"; the use of "so that" incorrectly implies that a mutual fund having billions of dollars in assets will typically invest that money in hundreds of companies, for the purpose of rarely holding more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation; the intended meaning is that a mutual fund having billions of dollars in assets will typically invest that money in hundreds of companies, and as a result, it will rarely hold more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation.

E: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun "A mutual fund" with the plural pronoun "they". Further, Option E alters the meaning of the sentence through the clause "rarely do they hold...corporation"; the construction of this clause incorrectly implies a mutual fund having billions of dollars in assets will typically invest that money in hundreds of companies, and as a separate action, it will rarely hold more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation; the intended meaning is that a mutual fund having billions of dollars in assets will typically invest that money in hundreds of companies, and as a result, it will rarely hold more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation.

Hence, A is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Comma + Present Participle for Cause-Effect Relationship" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~3 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

Very good question,

Meaning,

A big MF company invests money | in many corporations | so that its investment remains around 1% in each corporations.

Structure,

A mutual fund having billions of dollars in assets will typically invest that money in hundreds of companies, rarely holding more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation.

,rarely holding is for Mutual fund NOT companies
having billions of dollars - holding (verb+ing) modifier is showing an action of the subject MUTUAL FUND

Subject is " A mutual fund"............."holding more than............." modifies subject ' A mutual fund'

C, D & E straight out as it uses plural "they"
B uses wrong idiom " at least or more" and "it is rare....." construction is awkward.

A is correctly using verb-ing modifier.

Am

After referring to various prep materials and getting myself clear on logic.
Here is my take on the above question.

Meaning:- A mutual fund investing company will invest in hundreds of companies but does not holds more than !% share of any one company.

Now since i analyzed the meaning A, seems to be lucid and clear as the phrase after the comma starting with rarely is an adverbial phrase and is modifier, modifying Companies. is correct.

B distorts the meaning as it says it is rare to hold more than 1% or more.......It means the company has got share of few companies that is more than 1% , its not the intended meaning.

I read Chris lee mentioned It is vague absolutely not. It appears at the starting of independent clause. it is farely correct to mention It at the beginning of sentence.

In C , D and E they refers to Companies whose share the Mutual investment company holds. It is wrong, In fact it should refer to A mutual fund...

Hence correct answer is A!!

---------------------------------------------------
Consider Kudos, if my post helped!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ChrisLele,

Can you please clarify your explanation for Option B ? How the 'it' is vague ?
I ruled out B more on the meaning prospective than what you have explained.

Hi folks,

Just a small query.

I know that option (D) looses its significance when it uses plural 'THEY' instead of singular pronoun to refer back to the 'MUTUAL FUND'.

So if I make option (D) as below

(D).companies, so that IT rarely hold more than one percent.
(A). companies, rarely holding more than one percent.

Which option would be the best => A or D

Furthermore , while (A) has VERBING 'holding' modifier with an adverb 'rarely', (D) has a 'SO THAT' effect and then the main clause again.

And the meaning of both are not same.

(A). means => Rarely holding blah blah blah, mutual fund invests.......
(D). means => MF invests in....., and as a result it rarely holds blah blah blah

Plz advise !!

Hi TGC.

(1) Because of a "comma" the usage of "so that" is incorrect. The intended meaning is that the second part is just the modifier. If you put so that (I assume there is no comma), you will change the modifier part to the main part of sentence. Thus, even though you change plural pronoun "they" to singular pronoun "it", D is still incorrect.

(2) Verb-ing modifier with a comma --> modifies a preceding clause --> the modifier can tell you the result of the preceding clause-- OR --- provide more information. In this case, the modifier should tell the result of the action "investing in hundreds of companies" --> the result is the fund rarely holds more than 1% in of the shares of any particular corporation.
There is no reason to replace the modifier at the beginning as in your example. Thus, your "new" A and D are pretty the same in meaning.

Best regards.

Hi there,

I would like to contradict

,so that independent clause (Is correct usage which shows a result)

True: Verb-Ing modifies preceding clause or presents a result of a preceding clause. However , per the meaning of sentence it is correct to say

Rarely holding more than 1%, MF will invest...... (How MF will invest in companies...).....

, so that shows the result of the main clause here is what should be the intended meaning

Plz advise !

This is not the intended meaning. so that would convey that mutual funds intentionally do not hold more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation.

But the only intention of mutual funds is actually to invest money in hundreds of companies. The outcome (consequence) of this strategy is that mutual funds end up holding not more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation.

In other words, holding not more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation is just a consequence; so that would not convey consequence.

In fact, so that would reverse the intended meaning. The intended meaning is:

1. Mutual funds invest in hundreds of companies.

2. As a result, mutual funds end up holding not more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation.

so that depicts:

1. The intention of mutual funds is to hold not more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation.

2. To accomplish this, mutual funds invest money in hundreds of companies
_________________

Hi,

Choice A correctly uses the comma + verb- ing modifier to modify the preceding clause. The comma + verb –ing modifier presents either additional information about the preceding clause or the result of that clause. Here it presents the result of the preceding clause. So, essentially it means that the author is trying to say that because a mutual fund with a lot of money generally invests in a number of companies, it rarely holds more than one percent of the shares of any particular company.

Now typically, the information given in the comma+ verb –ing modifier should make sense with the subject of the modified clause. Let’s check the same here:

A mutual fund (with a particular feature) rarely holds more than one percent of the shares of any particular corporation.

As you can see, the information given in the modifier (holding…corporation) does make sense with the subject of the modified clause (a mutual fund).

To understand the concept and various uses of comma + verb –ing modifier more, please refer to our in depth article on the subject here :

https://e-gmat.com/blogs/?p=3465

Hope the above discussion helps!

Regards,
Neeti.
_________________

Hello Neeti & egmat,

Thanks for the detailed explanation, it's very helpful. Through POE I landed on the correct answer but i'm a little concerned with a gap in my knowledge -- can you please help clear it up?

- I know that Semi-Colon's are used to join two independent clauses. We don't need a coordinating conjunction when it's a semi-colon. Correct?
- If it's just a common and -ing modifier, the second pat will modify the first part and it DOESN't need to touch. Correct? Does the second half need to be an independent clause or can the subject and the verb be split over the comma?
- if there is a comma and a coordinating conjunction after the comma, what exactly does that imply? do they both need to be independent or can they have the S-V split over the two clauses.

Would appreciate your help!

Hi russ9,
Thank you for the post.

Let’s discuss your questions one by one.

1. I know that Semi-Colon's are used to join two independent clauses. We don't need a coordinating conjunction when it's a semi-colon. Correct?

Yes, you are absolutely correct. A semi-colon is sufficient to join two independent clauses. So, we don’t need to use any coordinating conjunction with a semi-colon. Let’s take these official questions as examples:

OFFICIAL QUESTION
• A proposal has been made to trim the horns from rhinoceroses to discourage poachers;
• the question is whether tourists will continue to visit game parks to see rhinoceroses once the animal’s horns have been trimmed.

OFFICIAL QUESTION
• Cajuns speak a dialect brought to southern Louisiana by the 4,000 Acadians who migrated there in 1755;
• their language is basically seventeenth-century French to which English, Spanish, and Italian words have been added.
Each of the above examples has two independent clauses connected with a semi-colon.




2. If it's just a common and -ing modifier, the second pat will modify the first part and it DOESN't need to touch. Correct? Does the second half need to be an independent clause or can the subject and the verb be split over the comma?

In my understanding, your question is regarding the usage of the verb-ing modifier. I’ll suggest that you go through the following articles on the verb-ing modifiers:
usage-of-verb-ing-modifiers-135220.html#p1101074
verb-ing-modifiers-part-2-in-our-first-article-on-verb-ing-135567.html#p1102952
If you any more questions once you have finished the article, please post them here. We’ll take the discussion forward from there.


3. if there is a comma and a coordinating conjunction after the comma, what exactly does that imply? do they both need to be independent or can they have the S-V split over the two clauses.

If a ‘comma + coordinating conjunction’ combination is used to split two independent clauses then there must be a separate subject-verb pair for each of the clauses. Two independent clauses cannot have S-V split over the two clauses.

OFFICIAL QUESTION
• Long before it was fashionable to be an expatriate, Josephine Baker made Paris her home,
• and she remained in France during the Second World War as a performer and an intelligence agent for the Resistance.
In the above sentence, two independent clauses are connected using ‘comma + and’.

Note that, ‘comma + the coordinating conjunction’ is also used to connect parallel lists. That is a different usage and there we won’t find any S-V pairs.




Hope the above discussion helps!
Regards,

Deepak
_________________

Hi e-gmat,

Thanks for your insight on this, it was totally useful.

However, I have 1 question regarding the last option E. I understand it has a pronoun problem, but would it be correct had the pronoun problem been resolved

companies; rarely does it hold one percent or more shares.

The semicolon rule says, the part following the semicolon should be able to stand alone as a sentence.

I intend to ask, can "does it hold one percent or more shares" stand alone as a sentence (please excuse the pronoun thing here.)
or
something like this would be better, Rarely it holds one percent or more shares. (does removed.)

Thanks.

Hi @Aldorado,

I'm happy to hear that our response helped.

"More than one percent of shares" is a better construction than "one percent or more shares," since "more" requires "than". But leaving that issue aside, yes, "rarely does it hold one percent or more shares" can stand on its own. "Rarely" is required at the beginning for this construction to hold. "Does" at the beginning would make it a question.

"Rarely it holds one percent or more shares" is incorrect. "It rarely holds one percent or more shares" would be correct. This construction is more about usage than grammar; a fluent speaker of English would be able to differentiate between the two constructions, but the GMAT doesn't test constructions in which you need to 'hear' the correct answer. So I wouldn't worry about this particular issue.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Meghna
_________________

dear experts, would you please to confirm my approach?
I found I missed the point although I picked up A, so I desires to get your confirmation.


"to hold" is the subject of the second sentence, which conveys that the action "to hold" is rare, -- OUT


two complete sentences without a conjunction or semicolon --- OUT


so that cannot be a conjunction, same issue as C, --- OUT



I hesitated A and E, because I did not figure out the pronoun issue when approaching , and picked up A eventually,
hope this won't happened when join the test.

hoping your confirmation,
thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~

All your explanations are alright except that in D. In D "so that" is wrong because "so that" indicates an effect of something - here the implication is not an effect, but a means of doing something.

I opened the window, so that fresh air may come in... correct (effect)
I opened the window, so that I turned the latch..... wrong (means of doing: I opened the window, turning the latch... correct)

First Glance

The underline contains a comma; because the answers are short, glance down at the differences surrounding the comma. There's a split between "comma -ing" and a participle modifier (holding) and and. Also, one answer has a semicolon. Look for Structure, Meaning, and Modifier issues.

Issues

(1) Meaning: and

Compare the beginnings of each answer vertically. Answers (B) and (C) insert the conjunction and, turning the "comma -ing" into an independent clause.

In the original sentence, the fact that the mutual fund invests in so many different companies results in the fact that the fund holds only a very small share of each company. When answers (B) and (C) insert the word and, they change what used to be a modifier into a separate clause. Two independent clauses should be read as two independent pieces of information unless some word exists to create a cause-effect relationship.

For example: Yesterday, Xiying visited the shoe store and she bought some milk. Those are two separate pieces of information (She probably didn't buy milk at the shoe store!); the only connection is that she did both things yesterday.

The sentence should contain a cause-effect relationship. Eliminate answers (B) and (C).

(2) Pronoun: they
Meaning: it

Continue to compare the answers vertically. Answer (B) introduces a pronoun, it; answers (C), (D), and (E) contain the pronoun they. Which nouns do these pronouns refer to?

They is a plural pronoun, but in all three cases, the pronoun is meant to refer to the singular noun mutual fund. Eliminate answers (C), (D), and (E).

In answer (B), the pronoun it does not refer to the mutual fund, rather, it is a dummy pronoun, as in the sentence "It is raining outside." Is there anything wrong with that? yes. The second half of answer (B) never clearly indicates that it is talking about the mutual fund. Eliminate answer (B) for faulty meaning.

The Correct Answer

Correct answer (A) uses a participle modifier to convey a cause-effect meaning. It avoids the pronoun issues by not using a pronoun at all.

_________________