That every worker has a clean criminal record is of some importance to

Official Solution (Credit: Manhattan Prep)

The sentence has several errors of concision. First, the structure “X is of … importance which is why Y is a … prerequisite” is awkward and wordy, and can be more concisely written as follows: “Because [X is … important], [Y is … necessary].” Second, both “some importance” and “necessary prerequisite” are redundant: if something is “important” it has "some importance"; similarly, a “prerequisite” is by definition “necessary.”

(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.

(B) The singular verb “is” does not agree with the plural subject “records.” In addition, the plural verb "are" does not agree with the singular subject "background check." Finally, the phrase “necessary prerequisite” is redundant.

(C) CORRECT. The redundant and passive clause “X is of significant importance to investment banks” is replaced by the more concise and active clause “they [investment banks] consider X important.” In addition, the redundant and passive clause “a background check is a necessary prerequisite [of investment banks]” is replaced by the more concise and active “investment banks require background checks.” Finally, the entire sentence is rewritten in the concise form “Because X, Y.”

(D) The phrase “some importance” is redundant and wordy. In addition, the meaning of the sentence has been changed to state that “many” of the employees underwent a background check; the original sentence asserted that the background check was required, and, therefore, was submitted to by all.

(E) The structure “the reason X is because Y” is redundant. The proper idiom is either “the reason X is Y” or “Y is because X.” In addition, it is not clear whether the pronouns “they” and “their” refer to “investment banks” or “applicants.”

(C) Because they consider it important that all of their employees have a clean criminal record, investment banks require each job applicant to undergo a stringent background check.

generis, need your help.

Why in this option subjunctive structure is not employed in the main clause?

investment banks require each job applicant to undergo a stringent background check.

J2S2019

You can require someone TO do something or require THAT something BE done. Both are fine, with slightly different shades of meaning. Answer choice follows the first, non-subjunctive, version. This puts the emphasis of the requirement on the person undergoing the check, rather than on the process itself. We could have used the command subjunctive a second time and said "require that applicants undergo a strict background check," but that's just one of several valid ways to express the same idea. It's a little cleaner and more direct the way it is.

Hi Shraddha,
Doesn’t choice C change the meaning of the original sentence? It says clean criminal record is of “some” importance to IBs while choice C says it is important to IBs..

Posted from my mobile device

KVKool, there is no such thing as the original sentence. A lot of experts have said, and rightly so, that there is nothing special about choice A. C conveys a clear meaning without any grammatical errors. Hope this helps!

(The only "original" part of an SC question is the non-underlined part)

Does the pronoun 'they' have a logical antecedent in the option E?
I see few members have pointed out that they is ambiguous. But IMO they can only refer to investment banks.
Could you help me clarify this doubt, Thanks

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.