Studies show that teachers unconsciously assume that

Question

Studies show that teachers unconsciously assume that students who regularly perform poorly on assessments have below-average abilities, and in neglecting to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their intellectual potential, the students often accept this damaging diagnosis and the life limits it implies.

(A) in neglecting to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their intellectual potential
(B) when they neglect providing the academic challenges that would be catalyzing their intellectual potential
(C) when teachers neglect to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their students’ intellectual potential
(D) in neglecting in providing the academic challenges that would catalyze their students’ intellectual potential
(E) in being neglectful with respect to providing the academic challenges that would be catalyzing their intellectual potential

For a full discussion of modifiers, as well as an explanation of this question, see this blog:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/modifiers- ... orrection/

Mike

Show Answer

Official Answer

C

pqhai · Answer

Tough question, Mike

+1 kudo IMO, C is correct because the structure should be: "Studies show that teachers unconsciously assume ..........., and when teachers neglect ............". Who neglects to provide the academic challenges? ==> should be teachers, not students (A) in neglecting to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their intellectual potential Wrong. "in neglecting" is not parallel. "their" is not clear, we may think their modifies students. (B) when they neglect providing the academic challenges that would be catalyzing their intellectual potential Wrong. "they" modifies students. "Neglect to do" sounds more idiomatic than "neglect doing". (C) when teachers neglect to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their students’ intellectual potential Correct. Clear meaning. (D) in neglecting in providing the academic challenges that would catalyze their students’ intellectual potential Wrong. "in neglecting" is not parallel. (E) in being neglectful with respect to providing the academic challenges that would be catalyzing their intellectual potential Wrong. " in being neglectful with respect to" sounds awkward. "their" is not clear, we may think their modifies students. Please correct if I'm wrong. Thanks.

daagh · Answer

The first thing is to decide who has to provide the impetus? Is it the students themselves or the teachers? If the students have to provide the necessary challenges themselves, why will they then need a teacher? So the onus is entirely on the teachers. In addition, this fact should be stated in the text clearly without ambiguity

(A) in neglecting to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their intellectual potential ---  The teachers are amiss in the subordinate clause. A classic case of dangling modification.

(B) when they neglect providing the academic challenges that would be catalyzing their intellectual potential ---  they – doubtful reference – whether ‘they’ refers to students or teachers has not been made clear.

(C) when teachers neglect to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their students’ intellectual potential----  clear modification and no dilemma of ambiguous references; ‘their’ clearly marks the teachers.

(D) in neglecting in providing the academic challenges that would catalyze their students’ intellectual potential----- 1. Wrong modification; the teachers should come immediately after the comma. 2. In neglecting in providing - awful idiom.

(E) In being neglectful with respect to providing the academic challenges that would be catalyzing their intellectual potential --- t he pronoun can refer to either the teachers or the students; secondly in being neglectful is rather inelegant

Nice practice question ; deserves a kudo.

btg9788 · Answer

I guess pronoun ambiguity is being tested. C perfectly represents the role of teachers and that of students as presented in the SC.

mikemcgarry · Answer

Well, I would say the logical issue of what modifies what is also a big part of this sentence. Suppose there were no pronouns present, and think about (A) ------ ... in neglecting to provide the academic challenges, the students .... The students aren't the ones who would provide, or neglect to provide, the academic challenges. The GMAT loves logical glitches like this. Remember, the GMAT SC tests logic as much as it tests grammar. Mike :-)

Narenn · Answer

C should be the answer

1) A comma immediately after underlined part indicates that the underlined part should be subordinate clause and should logically be connected to the following main clause   students………….it implies.  This is because later is consequence of an earlier action

2) The usage of  their  is ambiguous. I also have doubt that  that  may be referring to  providing

3) Correct Choice. Corrects both errors presented above.

4) Incorrect for the same reasons sited in Choice A and B

5) wordy and awkward usage  in being neglectful with respect to providing the academic challenges.

Regards,

Narenn

blueseas · Answer

Studies show that teachers unconsciously assume that students who regularly perform poorly on assessments have below-average abilities, and  in neglecting to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their intellectual potential , the students often accept this damaging diagnosis and the life limits it implies.
(A) in neglecting to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their intellectual potential
(B) when they neglect providing the academic challenges that would be catalyzing their intellectual potential
(C) when teachers neglect to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their students’ intellectual potential
(D) in neglecting in providing the academic challenges that would catalyze their students’ intellectual potential
(E) in being neglectful with respect to providing the academic challenges that would be catalyzing their intellectual potential

Good testing of modifier...

clearly if you understand the meaning of the sentence you can nail this one seconds
since:
"in neglecting to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their intellectual potential"===>this one followed by students so it is modifying students....but it is not the students who are neglecting to provide academic challenges..instead teachers are neglecting...

so now if you scan through....you will find only C IS MAKING SENSE.

SKM

jacobneroth · Answer

I understand that this question has a pronoun error and we can get the best answer by correcting the pronouns. But my question is, i have learned that 'when' is used to only refer to a time frame. How can the usage of 'when' be correct here?

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear jacobneroth I'm happy to respond. :-)

Yes, " when " always refers to a time frame, but we have many ways of referring to a time frame. One way is to refer to the particular time frame during which a particular action takes place or took place. When Athens condemned Socrates to death . . . When Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo . . . When a pope dies . . . When Obama has his press conference tomorrow . . . When a soccer team has a corner kick . . . When a GMAT student asks a question . . . When teachers neglect to provide the academic challenges to their students . . . All of those are particular time frames. Some of them are unique one-time-only time-frames, and some of them are recurrent and maybe even frequent. For example, soccer is played all over the world, so it may happen hundred of time each day that a soccer team somewhere on the planet has a corner kick. The frequency doesn't matter. At that particular time and place, the action of a corner kick is happening, and the " when " refers to events during that very specific time frame. Does this make sense? Mike :-)

aragonn · Answer

Official Explanation 
Split #1: modifier problem. The sentence begins with an independent clause, then a comma and the word "and", introducing a second independent clause, the main clause of which follows the underlined part. If the underlined part begins with participial phrase, this must modify "the students", the subject of the second independent clause. This is problematic, because the students don't "neglect to provide the academic challenges" --- that's a teacher's job, not a student's job! Choices (A) & (D) & (E) all have a participial phrase that illogically modifies "the students", so these are incorrect.

Split #2: choice (B) makes the classic repeated pronouns mistake. "… when they   neglect providing the academic challenges that would be catalyzing their   intellectual potential …" The pronoun "they"/"their" refers to two different antecedents in the same sentence! That's 100% illegal on the GMAT. (B) is incorrect.

This leaves (C) as the only possible answer.

Pankaj0901 · Answer

Could you please explain this one also  AndrewN ? Thanks a lot in advance.

I couldn't understand the sentence, highlighted in red: 
  If the underlined part begins with participial phrase, this must modify "the students", the subject of the second independent clause.

While I understand the ambiguity between "teachers" and "students" in this sentence, I am not so clear why the participle phrase after "and" cannot refer to the "teachers", which is also the subject of the previous sentence?

Studies show that  teachers  unconsciously assume that students who regularly perform poorly on assessments have below-average abilities, and
(A) in neglecting to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their intellectual potential

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  Pankaj0901 . Although I agree that the participle on its own could modify  teachers , if that were so, we would expect to see them mentioned again after the underlined portion, where we get  students  instead. To be clear, the following standalone variant would be fine (changes are  highlighted ):

1)  Studies show that teachers unconsciously assume that students who regularly perform poorly on assessments have below-average abilities, and  in neglecting to provide the academic challenges that would catalyze their  students'  intellectual potential , the  teachers ...

In the original sentence, because we cannot negotiate  the students  immediately after the underlined portion, and especially because  their  prior to the comma does, in fact, refer to this group rather than the teachers, we find ourselves in a logical quandary to qualify the participle. It seems to refer to teachers until we jump across the comma, at which point a more compelling case can be made, grammatically at least, for the students.

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

Pankaj0901 · Answer

I completely got the point. Thank you for such nice explanations as always @AndewN. You have made my process of learning so easy I had not expected. Thanks to @GMATCub for having such great people under one umbrella in this forum!

Studies show that teachers unconsciously assume that

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

Studies show that teachers unconsciously assume that

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards