Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi

Hello leanhdung,

I will be glad to help you with this one.

A pronoun must refer to only one noun without any ambiguity whatsoever. This is the only rule that we must keep in mind while looking for ambiguous pronoun reference.

You are absolutely correct in saying that while pronoun they refer to investment officers, pronoun their refers to several corporations.

However, there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the reference of these two pronouns. The context of the sentence allows they to refer to only investments officers while allows their to refer to several corporations only.

So these two different pronouns clearly refer to two different noun entities.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

GMATNinja . egmat .

Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment officers' fees to be based on how the funds they manage perform, several corporations began paying their investment advisers a small basic fee, with a contract promising higher fees if the managers perform well.


(A) investment officers' fees to be based on how the funds they manage perform, several corporations began

(B) investment officers' fees to be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations began

(C) that fees of investment officers be based on how the funds they manage perform, several corporations have begun

(D) fees of investment officers to be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations have begun

(E) that investment officers' fees be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations began




As per your explanations, In the options C and D, they refers to the investment officers.

But fees is also a possible antecedent for they, then this should be the case of pronoun ambiguity right. Can you please help me by explaining why they is not referring to fees.

Thanks in advance.

This sentence is a good example of why pronoun ambiguity isn't a foolproof reason to eliminate answer choices. (More on that in this video.)

When you see a pronoun, ask yourself if there's a logical antecedent somewhere in the sentence. If there is, move on to other issues. In both (D) and (C), "they" indicates that we're looking for a plural referent. The closest plural noun is "investment officers," and it makes perfect sense for investment officers to manage the funds, so "they" is fine.

The fact that there's another plural noun, "fees," is not a reason to automatically eliminate these options. First, no reasonable reader would be genuinely confused about whether it's the fees that are managing the funds! More importantly, there are many examples of OA's in which we see a potentially ambiguous pronoun, so the question writers are telling us quite clearly that pronoun ambiguity is not inherently wrong -- and we always want to look for more concrete errors before resorting to pronoun ambiguity as a deciding factor.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hi GMATGuruNY between C vs. D - i chose C.

I eliminated D because I thought the core of D once you drop the two prepositional phrases in color below ; option D read as

You allow fees (of investment officers) (to be based on the performance of the funds they manage)

How can you allow "Fees" ?

It doesn't make sense to allow "Fees" because the "Fees" don't perform any action themselves.

You normally
-- allow "children" to play [children can perform the action, to play]
-- allow "parliament" to pass laws [parliamentarians can perform the action, to pass legislation]
-- allow "employees" to work [employees can perform an action, to work]

How can you allow "fees" [Fees by themselves cannot perform an action]

Actually in my 1st reading I choose C and E. Finally I chose C but when I read the meaning of C , I knew my first selection is wrong.
Here are my thoughts:

I treat GMAT SC like Gambling, sometimes some grey area concepts would be valid and sometimes the same concepts will be rejected.
What is aim of GMAT SC? To provide a sentence that is best among all given options. I need to choose a sentence that has no core grammatical mistake(1) ---> no ambiguous meaning(2) ---> better written than others(3).
I reject C because it didn't pass in (2) and I went back and choose D.

let's see C:(C) that fees of investment officers be based on how the funds they manage perform, several corporations have begun
when I read "perform" the sentence pissed me off. meaning wise : fees should be based on performance . performance of what ? performance of how they manage funds. But C give me meaning that fees is based on funds they manage. Clearly wrong.
A, B and E were rejected based on tense "" began" . why ? because the sentence starts with : Since
Now I am left with D.
I re-read:

(D) fees of investment officers to be based on the performance of the funds they manage, several corporations have begun
ok, here that is missing. But shall I reject on basis of that when the meaning is clear?
can that be omitted? My answer was yes. I have seen some GMAT SC questions in which that can be eliminated.
D is better than other options. So I had no other reason not to mark D as option.

If you want to read about this concept .please refer this post

I hope it helps:)

Shall we not consider , allow that??

Hello ManyataM,

I will be glad to help you with this one.

There are certain words that are followed by subjunctive verbs and, certain others are followed by a "to verb" phrase. The word "allow" is followed by a "to verb" phrase. For example:

1. The students were allowed to present a short skit during the annual cultural program.
2. Please allow me to help you with this question.


Choice C does not follow this structure. We do not need the subjective form "be based" with "allow" in this sentence. we need the "to verb" phrase "to be based". The correct answer Choice D uses this structure and hence is correct.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Hi egmat - do you know "WHY" / "Logic" behind why allow cannot be followed by "THAT" but a word like insist has to be followed by 'THAT"

I have seen the moment I realize the logic behind an idiom/rule -- it's much easier to internalize the rule

Hello jabhatta2,

Thank you for the query.


As far as I know, the command words take the "that + subject + subjunctive verb" form. So yes, "insist", "recommend", etc. are those words that have the tone of command. However, the words such as "allow", "propose" etc. are a bit softer in tone and hence are followed by a "to verb" phrase. Again, this is my understanding of these usages.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Can someone clarify if we had "began" would that not turn the part after first comma to an independent clause. I came across a question which does a similar distinction based on swim vs swum . One verb another participle. I can't cite it right now.
But can someone explain this query please.

Posted from my mobile device

Hello sharmisthamona2,

Thank you for the question.


Well yes, the simple past tense verb "began" and the present perfect tense verb "have begun" both make the structure after the comma an independent clause that is connected to the preceding dependent clause with a comma. This connection is correct. Please note that the first clause in the sentence starts with "Since" which makes this clause a dependent clause.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Hi Charles,
I wanted your take on eliminating options A,B and E. Ideally, a pronoun can refer to a noun in the possessive form. Please find below the official question -:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/although-she ... 08881.html

We have a more nuanced understanding of the issue now -- you're right that there are some instances of a non-possessive pronoun referring back to a possessive antecedent in correct answers to official questions, so you should not treat this as an absolute rule.

A nice concrete reason to eliminate (A), (B), and (E) is the faulty verb tense. Typically, when I begin a clause with "since", I'm communicating an action that has begun in the past and continues into the present. For example:

Since 8:00 a.m., Tim has been fiddling with the toaster, attempting in vain to extract the array of lego heads his children cooked for breakfast.

Tim began the action ("has been fiddling") in the morning, and the poor guy is still at it in the present. So we want the present perfect "has" or "have" to communicate the timing properly.

In this SC question, the sentence begins with "Since 1986," so we know that the action started in the past and is still ongoing, meaning we want the present perfect form, "have begun." Kill (A), (B), and (E), which all have the simple present, "began." No need to bang our heads against the wall worrying about the pronoun usage.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hi avigutman - curious between C and D

If one has no idea about the idioms (Allow X + to + Verb or Allow X + to be + verb) or the subjunctive tense format ...can you use cold meaning or logic to eliminate C vs D ?

If not, thats fine

jabhatta2: Not cold meaning or logic, but one of these is significantly cleaner than the other:
based on how the funds they manage perform
based on the performance of the funds they manage
_________________

A and B- they refers to fees. This doesn't make any sense.
C & E - 'allow' is followed by 'to' usually and not 'that'
Last option standing - D

Posted from my mobile device

In case of Since + Time, the sentence should be in present prefect

hence began is wrong and we need have begun, so Answer choices A, B, and E are gone

Further, in answer choice C, we got too many pronouns : that, how, they ( too many pronouns too bad an answer choice )

and we are left with answer choice D, which is the correct answer choice.
_________________

Hi! the sentence "began to allow fees of investment officers to be based " doesn't seem correct if we go with the literal meaning. It means that department of labour allowed fees to be based... how can one allow fees to be based on something, its like giving permission to fees. Am I overanalysing things? help needed. IanStewart
AndrewN

I don't think I quite follow how you're interpreting this phrase. It's a passive construction, not an active one, so the sentence is not saying that fees are being given permission to do something. If, when there's noisy construction going on outside, a high school teacher says to a class "I can't allow the math test to be taken in these conditions", the teacher isn't denying the test permission to do something. The construction is passive; it means "I can't allow the math test to be taken (by the class) in these conditions", or rephrasing it in an active way "I can't allow the class to take the math test in these conditions".

Similarly, in the original sentence, when it says, paraphrasing, "The Labor Department began to allow fees to be based on performance" it means "The Labor Department began to allow fees to be based (by the employer paying the fees) on performance", or phrased actively, "The Labor Department began to allow employers to pay fees based on performance".
_________________