Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

It is currently 18 Jul 2019, 02:41

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
P
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2855
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2017, 15:20
leanhdung wrote:
Hi GMATNinja,

In in the correct option D, i think they refers to investment officers and their refers to several corporations.

So if my reasoning is correct, they and their refer to different entities (investment officers and several corporations's).

Is this case violating the pronoun rule?

Many thanks and I'm looking forward to receive your reply :-)



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
_________________
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
P
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2855
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Aug 2017, 15:34
yyyyyttttt wrote:
C is right ans

Sent from my Redmi 4A using GMAT Club Forum mobile app



Hello yyyyyttttt,

I am afraid Choice C is not the correct answer for this question.

The word allow does not require subjunctive verb as we see in Choice C.

This word is followed by a to verb phrase as we see in the correct answer choice D.

Hope this helps. :-)
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 26 Dec 2016
Posts: 23
Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Feb 2019, 08:27
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.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
D
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2670
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Feb 2019, 03:02
1
mahi816 wrote:
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!
_________________
GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations: All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

SC articles & resources: How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

RC, CR, and other articles & resources: All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 25 Jan 2017
Posts: 57
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jun 2019, 23:48
Dear All,

I have shortlisted C & D.
I have through all the posts in this thread and still I am not convinced why C is wrong.

Kindly help in explaining it detail.
egmat VeritasKarishma EMPOWERgmatVerbal GMATNinja

Thanks in advance
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 15 Nov 2015
Posts: 136
Location: India
GPA: 3.7
GMAT ToolKit User CAT Tests
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jun 2019, 00:18
1
priyanshu14 wrote:
Dear All,

I have shortlisted C & D.
I have through all the posts in this thread and still I am not convinced why C is wrong.

Kindly help in explaining it detail.
egmat VeritasKarishma EMPOWERgmatVerbal GMATNinja

Thanks in advance


priyanshu14

"To allow X to do Y" is the correct idiom. So, the use of "to allow that X be y" is unidiomatic.

DoL allowed IO's fees to be based on performance, hence no need for ''that'', which is a redundant.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 25 Jan 2017
Posts: 57
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jun 2019, 17:01
egmat wrote:
thangvietnam wrote:
I am e gmat customer and I see that many e-gmat's articles are great.

The following is from OG. I get to the right answer comfortablly.
But I do not understand the use of "with a contract... well" . This phrase modify the previous clause. Is that right? "with" refer to what noun?

It seem that gmat dose not test this point of grammar. However , knowing how "with"phrase can be used is good for us. I see this "with" phrase appear many times on gmatprep.

e gmat expert, pls, explain fully the role of "with" phrase in the sentence.
Thank you.

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
123
(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


Hi thangvietnam,

We will definitely write an article on prepositional phrase modifiers. But for now, I will give you a general idea about your query.

“with” modifiers are very versatile modifiers.


They can modify either the preceding clause or the preceding nouns. What they modify actually depends on the context of the sentence and the wording of the modifier itself.

Consider this correct sentence from an official question:
Bihar is India’s poorest state, with an annual per capita income of $111, lower than that of the most impoverished countries of the world.

In this sentence, with modifier actually modifies the preceding noun. With modifier in this sentence has the following sense
India’s poorest state, which has an annual per capita income of $111
Notice how “which has” can be understood to replace “with”.

However, this modifier can be understood to modify the subject of the clause as well because of the nature of the verb - is. This is a linking verb, which establishes the following relationship:
Bihar = India’s poorest state.
So whatever modifies India’s poorest state also modifies Bihar. You can notice similar behavior of the verb-ed modifier in OG12#5 - Diabetes ranks as…

Now lets consider a scenario in which “with” modifier modifies the preceding clause.
This is a GMATPrep Question. You can find the detailed solution of this question at thislink.

Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging like socks on a clothesline.

The highlighted modifier above modifies the preceding clause. In essence this sentence can be written as two separate sentences:
1. Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys sleeping on the branches,
2. Their arms and legs are hung like socks on a clothesline.
So sentence 2 has been converted into with modifier. This modifier extends the thought of the preceding clause by providing a detail supporting it.

Now if the above sounds very complicated, then do not worry about it. As long as you know that these modifiers are versatile and hence can modify preceding clause and preceding nouns, you would be fine. Let the meaning of the sentence guide you. You should understand the meaning of the sentence and ensure that one of these roles fit well.

Now based on this treatment, can you analyze the sentence in your post and tell me what is the role of "with modifier". Remember CONTEXT is the key.

I look forward to your response.
Thanks,

Payal


Dear egmat,
thanks for the detailed explanation for modifier "with"
I have gone through following official question and try to apply above concept. In this case, the statement is started with "with". My question is what is "with" modifying.

With corn, soybean, and wheat reserves being so low that a poor harvest would send prices skyrocketing, grain futures brokers and their clients are especially interested in weather that could affect crops

Kindly suggest.

Thanks in advance
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi   [#permalink] 25 Jun 2019, 17:01

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 27 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne