Last visit was: 24 Jul 2024, 12:28 It is currently 24 Jul 2024, 12:28
Toolkit
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

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.

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

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Manager
Joined: 25 May 2020
Posts: 136
Own Kudos [?]: 13 [0]
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GPA: 3.2
Director
Joined: 29 Apr 2019
Status:Learning
Posts: 729
Own Kudos [?]: 589 [0]
Given Kudos: 49
Intern
Joined: 19 Jul 2021
Posts: 48
Own Kudos [?]: 47 [0]
Given Kudos: 30
Location: India
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6990
Own Kudos [?]: 64580 [0]
Given Kudos: 1824
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi [#permalink]
Vetrick wrote:
egmat wrote:
amlan1985 wrote:
Hi GMATNinja,

Though we have no way to disagree with OA, I have the below doubt with option D

In "Fees of investment officers" , investment officers is the object of the preposition "of". And it has been much discussed in other posts that object of a preposition can't act as Subject of a sentence. So how is it that "they"'s antecedent is an object of a preposition?

Regards
Amlan

Hello Amlan amlan1985,

I guess I know what your confusion is.

Since the noun entity investment officers lie in a prepositional phrase, you think that a pronoun cannot refer to it.

This is certianly not the case.

A noun entity in a prepositional phrase cannot act as the subject of a clause. This is the only restriction on a noun entity in a prepositional phrase. A pronoun or a noun modifier can very well refer to a noun entity preceded by a preposition.

Hence, there is no issue regarding the pronoun reference of they in the correct answer choice.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.

Hi,

But there is a rule which says that an adjective can't be the antecedent of pronoun, right ? (Please correct me, if I am wrong). Though, the prepositional phrase 'of the investment officers' is not exactly an adjective, it does act like an adjective which modifies the noun 'fees', right ?
In that case, can 'they' refer to 'investment officers' ?
--
Should I just remember that proper adjectives can't be antecedents of pronouns but the noun entities in the prepositional phrases can be ?

Would be great if you can help by sharing your thoughts. egmat GMATNinja

Thank you.

The object of a prepositional phrase (in this case, "investment officers") is in fact a noun, so it's no problem for a pronoun to refer to that noun. On the other hand, the entire prepositional phrase is a modifier, and of course it wouldn't make any sense for a pronoun to refer to the entire prepositional phrase (preposition + object).

I hope that helps!
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1352
Own Kudos [?]: 221 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi [#permalink]
IanStewart wrote:
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".

Hi IanStewart -

gave the following analogy of active vs passive as a similar construction to the oiginal problem (which was very helpfull)

Active : I can't allow the class to take the math test in these conditions
Passive : I can't allow the math test to be taken (by the class) in these conditions

I actually thought the passive voice in this analogy and the passive voice in the original - BOTH CASES DO NOT WORK because literally speaking – the sentence in the passive voice is implying you cant allow the math test to do something

Almost as if the math test itself is hoping to perform an action. Then the math test asked for your permission. You denied the math test permission

Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 19 Nov 2021, 19:23.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 19 Nov 2021, 20:00, edited 8 times in total.
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1352
Own Kudos [?]: 221 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi [#permalink]
contd from above...

IanStewart

The reason I say this is because literal meaning is a strategy often employed when eliminating other official problems
Official example # 1 = Answer A can be eliminated because literally this means, Railroad Employees themselves are going to be added to the increase, which doesnt make sense.

Official example # 2 = Answer A is also eliminated per the official explanation, because scientsts themselves cant be BASED ON accounts ...

Simirilarly, I am struggling to understand why the passive contruction is okay in the analogy | original problem because in both cases (analogy | original problem)

You are giving way / giving permission to Fees / Math tests so that the fees / math tests themselves can peform an action

Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 19 Nov 2021, 19:32.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 20 Nov 2021, 17:08, edited 1 time in total.
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 4127
Own Kudos [?]: 9465 [0]
Given Kudos: 91
Q51  V47
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi [#permalink]
jabhatta2 wrote:
gave the following analogy of active vs passive as a similar construction to the oiginal problem (which was very helpfull)

Active : I can't allow the class to take the math test in these conditions
Passive : I can't allow the math test to be taken (by the class) in these conditions

I actually thought the passive voice in this analogy and the passive voice in the original - BOTH CASES DO NOT WORK because literally speaking – the sentence in the passive voice is implying you cant allow the math test to do something

You're leaving out some important words when you only highlight part of the sentence. What is not allowed to happen, in the passive example, is that "the math test be taken" under whatever conditions are problematic. The math test itself isn't being given permission to do or not do something -- that would only be true if the verb was active: "I can't allow the math test to go to the party" for example, would be a sentence where the math test was (nonsensically) being denied permission to do something. When the verb is passive, "to be taken", the math test becomes the object, not the subject, of the verb. We use constructions like this quite often, and there's nothing illogical about them. A sentence like "The law does not permit hazardous chemicals to be combined with ordinary household garbage" is a perfectly good sentence, and there's no suggestion that "hazardous chemicals" are being denied permission to do something. It's the people who dispose of garbage who are denied permission to do something with hazardous chemicals in this sentence.
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1352
Own Kudos [?]: 221 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi [#permalink]
Hi IanStewart -

here is the passive voice of option D (getting rid of a lot of the modifiers)

Passive voice: The DOL began to allow fees to be based on performances.

I have tried making the active voice for option D. I think the active voice doesnt make any sense because you are suggesting -- you are allowing the subject - Performances to do something

Active voice: The DOL began to allow performances to base fees.

Just curious on your thoughts on my attempt to create the active version for option D.
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 4127
Own Kudos [?]: 9465 [0]
Given Kudos: 91
Q51  V47
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi [#permalink]
jabhatta2 wrote:
Hi IanStewart -

here is the passive voice of option D (getting rid of a lot of the modifiers)

Passive voice: The DOL began to allow fees to be based on performances.

I have tried making the active voice for option D. I think the active voice doesnt make any sense because you are suggesting -- you are allowing the subject - Performances to do something

Active voice: The DOL began to allow performances to base fees.

Just curious on your thoughts on my attempt to create the active version for option D.

In passive constructions, the subject is often unmentioned, and if you want to rephrase a passive sentence in an active way, you may need to identify and insert the subject, (adding "by X") first. So in this sentence, for example:

The party was shut down because of noise complaints.

it's not clear who shut the party down (and we often prefer passive constructions like this when the subject is not that important -- the point of this sentence is that the party ended) but if we guess it was the police who shut it down, we can add the subject to the sentence above:

The party was shut down by police because of noise complaints.

and now we can rephrase this in an active way:

Police shut down the party because of noise complaints.

The same thing is true of the original sentence here -- the subject isn't mentioned. Who bases fees on performance? Presumably the investment officers charging the fees. So "DOL allowed fees to be based on performance" becomes, inserting our predicted subject, "DOL allowed fees to be based by investment officers on performance" (this is now a very awkward sentence) which becomes, as an active sentence, "DOL allowed investment officers to base their fees on performance". It's more complicated than my original example because of the string of two verbs ("allowed", "to base") but the general principle is the same.
Intern
Joined: 20 Oct 2020
Posts: 37
Own Kudos [?]: 69 [0]
Given Kudos: 20
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi [#permalink]
Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2020
Posts: 47
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 77
Location: United Kingdom
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi [#permalink]
Hello,

I can't understand why C° is wrong.

xcusemeplz2009 wrote:
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
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6990
Own Kudos [?]: 64580 [3]
Given Kudos: 1824
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi [#permalink]
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Naptiste wrote:
Hello,

I can't understand why C° is wrong.

xcusemeplz2009 wrote:
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

(C) has a meaning issue. Typically, "allow that" means something like "concede that" or "admit that." For instance:

I'll allow that Tim isn't the best dad, but I was still surprised when he attempted to reenact the climactic scene of Jaws with a real shark and his toddler.

The meaning here is that while the author admits that he knows Tim isn't a great dad, he was still surprised by his negligence.

Now apply that interpretation of "allow that" to the relevant portion of (C):

Quote:
Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow that fees of investment officers be based on how the funds they manage perform

So in 1986 the Department of Labor began to admit that the fees were based on how the funds performed? Nah.

It makes far more sense to use "allow" in the sense of "permit," because the Department of Labor is making the rules, not admitting that they exist. This is the meaning we get in (D).

I hope that clears things up!
Intern
Joined: 10 Jan 2021
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 221
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi [#permalink]
Hi GMATNinja,

Could you please explain why "have begun" is correct and "began" is wrong? I read a few explanations, and since I'm not a big fan of jargon, I couldn't really understand the difference. It would be really very helpful if you could explain it with some example
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6990
Own Kudos [?]: 64580 [1]
Given Kudos: 1824
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Shreya00 wrote:
Hi GMATNinja,

Could you please explain why "have begun" is correct and "began" is wrong? I read a few explanations, and since I'm not a big fan of jargon, I couldn't really understand the difference. It would be really very helpful if you could explain it with some example

"Have + VERB" suggests an action that started in the past and continues into the present. The construction "Since + YEAR," implies the same -- the action started in the specified year and is ongoing.

Here, have an example:

"The Sacramento Kings have made brilliant personnel decisions since 2003."

Translation: the team started making brilliant decisions in 2003 and they continue to make brilliant decisions today. (Apologies to all seven Kings fans out there.)

In the official example, we're talking about a behavior that's been happening "since 1986," so the "have" correctly conveys the fact that the behavior has occurred from 1986 through the present.

Put another way, I could write, "In 1986, several corporations began," or "Since 1986, several corporations have begun."

No jargon necessary! For more low-jargon rambling about verb tenses, check out this video.

I hope that helps!
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1352
Own Kudos [?]: 221 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi [#permalink]
GMATNinja wrote:
Shreya00 wrote:
Hi GMATNinja,

Could you please explain why "have begun" is correct and "began" is wrong? I read a few explanations, and since I'm not a big fan of jargon, I couldn't really understand the difference. It would be really very helpful if you could explain it with some example

"Have + VERB" suggests an action that started in the past and continues into the present. The construction "Since + YEAR," implies the same -- the action started in the specified year and is ongoing.

Here, have an example:

"The Sacramento Kings have made brilliant personnel decisions since 2003."

Translation: the team started making brilliant decisions in 2003 and they continue to make brilliant decisions today. (Apologies to all seven Kings fans out there.)

In the official example, we're talking about a behavior that's been happening "since 1986," so the "have" correctly conveys the fact that the behavior has occurred from 1986 through the present.

Put another way, I could write, "In 1986, several corporations began," or "Since 1986, several corporations have begun."

No jargon necessary! For more low-jargon rambling about verb tenses, check out this video.

I hope that helps!

Hi GMATNinja - other than "since..." -- what other trigger words do you look out for, when thinking about using the present perfect ?
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6990
Own Kudos [?]: 64580 [1]
Given Kudos: 1824
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi [#permalink]
1
Kudos
jabhatta2 wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
Shreya00 wrote:
Hi GMATNinja,

Could you please explain why "have begun" is correct and "began" is wrong? I read a few explanations, and since I'm not a big fan of jargon, I couldn't really understand the difference. It would be really very helpful if you could explain it with some example

"Have + VERB" suggests an action that started in the past and continues into the present. The construction "Since + YEAR," implies the same -- the action started in the specified year and is ongoing.

Here, have an example:

"The Sacramento Kings have made brilliant personnel decisions since 2003."

Translation: the team started making brilliant decisions in 2003 and they continue to make brilliant decisions today. (Apologies to all seven Kings fans out there.)

In the official example, we're talking about a behavior that's been happening "since 1986," so the "have" correctly conveys the fact that the behavior has occurred from 1986 through the present.

Put another way, I could write, "In 1986, several corporations began," or "Since 1986, several corporations have begun."

No jargon necessary! For more low-jargon rambling about verb tenses, check out this video.

I hope that helps!

Hi GMATNinja - other than "since..." -- what other trigger words do you look out for, when thinking about using the present perfect ?

As far as trigger words go, "since" is the most obvious one, but I don't recommend memorizing a list and then hunting for those words.

Instead, I'd wait until I saw a present perfect verb in an answer choice. Then I'd ask, "would it make sense if this action started in the past and continues into the present?" If I then saw the word "since", that would be one good justification. But if it just made logical sense for the action to be ongoing, well, that's a good justification too, even if there's no identifiable trigger. Either way, I'm hanging on to that option and looking for other issues.

Put another way, if I think about the verb tense logically and use context, I'm unlikely to go astray. But if I go in looking for certain key words and then blindly assume that the present perfect is wrong if I don't see those words, I might convince myself that a certain construction is incorrect, even when it isn't.

I hope that helps!
Intern
Joined: 12 Sep 2017
Posts: 28
Own Kudos [?]: 10 [0]
Given Kudos: 16
Location: Korea, Republic of
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37
GPA: 3.6
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi [#permalink]
egmat wrote:
amlan1985 wrote:
Hi GMATNinja,

Though we have no way to disagree with OA, I have the below doubt with option D

In "Fees of investment officers" , investment officers is the object of the preposition "of". And it has been much discussed in other posts that object of a preposition can't act as Subject of a sentence. So how is it that "they"'s antecedent is an object of a preposition?

Regards
Amlan

Hello Amlan amlan1985,

I guess I know what your confusion is.

Since the noun entity investment officers lie in a prepositional phrase, you think that a pronoun cannot refer to it.

This is certianly not the case.

A noun entity in a prepositional phrase cannot act as the subject of a clause. This is the only restriction on a noun entity in a prepositional phrase. A pronoun or a noun modifier can very well refer to a noun entity preceded by a preposition.

Hence, there is no issue regarding the pronoun reference of they in the correct answer choice.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.

Hello, I am having trouble in understanding the rules of pronoun and what can be pronoun's antecedent.(Regarding possessive)

For instance, as far as I know, 'they' cannot have 'investment officers' as the antecedent in option A, saying 'investment officers' fees~'. This is because 'investment officer's' is possessive.
Similarly, I thought 'they' cannot have 'investment officers' as the antecedent in option D. Because, 'fees of investment officers' can be seen equal with 'investment officers' fees~', and both are possessive.
Can you experts please correct my misconception?

Thank you very much for your help.

GMATNinja egmat
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Posts: 5128
Own Kudos [?]: 4694 [0]
Given Kudos: 38
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi [#permalink]
celan wrote:
egmat wrote:
amlan1985 wrote:
Hi GMATNinja,

Though we have no way to disagree with OA, I have the below doubt with option D

In "Fees of investment officers" , investment officers is the object of the preposition "of". And it has been much discussed in other posts that object of a preposition can't act as Subject of a sentence. So how is it that "they"'s antecedent is an object of a preposition?

Regards
Amlan

Hello Amlan amlan1985,

I guess I know what your confusion is.

Since the noun entity investment officers lie in a prepositional phrase, you think that a pronoun cannot refer to it.

This is certianly not the case.

A noun entity in a prepositional phrase cannot act as the subject of a clause. This is the only restriction on a noun entity in a prepositional phrase. A pronoun or a noun modifier can very well refer to a noun entity preceded by a preposition.

Hence, there is no issue regarding the pronoun reference of they in the correct answer choice.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.

Hello, I am having trouble in understanding the rules of pronoun and what can be pronoun's antecedent.(Regarding possessive)

For instance, as far as I know, 'they' cannot have 'investment officers' as the antecedent in option A, saying 'investment officers' fees~'. This is because 'investment officer's' is possessive.
Similarly, I thought 'they' cannot have 'investment officers' as the antecedent in option D. Because, 'fees of investment officers' can be seen equal with 'investment officers' fees~', and both are possessive.
Can you experts please correct my misconception?

Thank you very much for your help.

GMATNinja egmat

Hello celan,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, the rule that only possessive pronouns can refer to possessive nouns is not one that the GMAT really follows anymore; thus, a subject or object pronoun can be used to refer to the base of a possessive noun.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2021
Posts: 155
Own Kudos [?]: 94 [0]
Given Kudos: 167
Location: India
WE:Corporate Finance (Accounting)
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi [#permalink]
Quote:
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

Hello Experts EducationAisle ParamjitDasGMAT AjiteshArun,

I was looking for have began ,and hence rejected Options C and D.

1/ Some countries have begun to tackle the issue
2/Some countries have began to tackle the issue

Thanks
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4426
Own Kudos [?]: 31332 [1]
Given Kudos: 642
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Re: Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow investment offi [#permalink]
1
Kudos
PriyamRathor wrote:
Hello Experts EducationAisle ParamjitDasGMAT AjiteshArun,

I was looking for have began ,and hence rejected Options C and D.

1/ Some countries have begun to tackle the issue
2/Some countries have began to tackle the issue

Thanks

Hello PriyamRathor,

Hope you are doing well.

Although your question is not for me, I would like to help.

The expression "have began" is actually incorrect. Type it on a word doc, and you will see the red line beneath "began".

Grammatically, the verbs have, has, and had are followed by the past participle form of verbs. For example, has eaten, had danced, have believed, etc. The word "begun" is the past participle form of the verb "begin". Therefore, we see the verb "have begun" in the correct answer choice.

You can look up any high-school English grammar book to find a list of the past participle form of verbs.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.