That the consumer products division lacks credible leadership cannot

Could someone explain why A is right?
That the consumer products division lacks credible leadership cannot be blamed for the company's troubles.

(A) That the consumer products division lacks credible leadership cannot be blamed - seems like fragment; so didnt pick
(B) That the consumer products division has a lack in credible leadership cannot be blamed
(C) The consumer products division lacks credible leadership cannot be blamed it has a missing word 'for' - so why is it incorrect? The construction seems clearer in meaning.
(D) The lack of credible leadership of the consumer products division is not blaming
(E) It is not blameworthy that the consumer products division lacks credible leadership

Could someone explain why A is right?
That the consumer products division lacks credible leadership cannot be blamed for the company's troubles.

(A) That the consumer products division lacks credible leadership cannot be blamed - seems like fragment; so didnt pick

(C) The consumer products division lacks credible leadership cannot be blamed it has a missing word 'and' preceding 'cannot be blamed' - so why is it incorrect? The construction seems clearer in meaning.

What this sentence is trying to convey is that just because "the consumer products division lacks credible leadership" that does not mean that lack of credibility in itself is necessarily an attributable cause of the company's trouble. We cannot blame the company's troubles on the fact that the consumer division lacks credible leadership in other words. So actually "A" is fine.

A

Why is C not correct..Please explain, thank you

Hi pclawong ,

C has a DISASTROUS Error.

It has one subject and two verbs joined without any conjunction. GMAT hates this and so I. :P

Subject : The consumer products division

Verb 1: lacks credible leadership
Verb 2: cannot be blamed

Does that make sense?

Thank you but isn't A the same?

(A) That the consumer products division lacks credible leadership cannot be blamed
(C) The consumer products division lacks credible leadership cannot be blamed

Would you tell me how "that" makes the difference?

Hi pclawong ,

Here I go:

That here is representing "The fact that". It is okay to use just "that"

Now, A is actually a combination of two sentences

1. The fact that X cannot be blamed.
2. the consumer products division lacks credible leadership

Hence, A is correct.

Let me take an example:

The fact that I am an Indian Engineer is the reason I am not at Harvard.

Did you see a similar construction now?

That the consumer products division lacks credible leadership cannot be blamed for the company's troubles.

X = consumer product division
Y = company's troubles


(A) That the consumer products division lacks credible leadership cannot be blamed - I initially eliminated this and picked (B) instead. But if you analyze the structure in (A), it is as follows:

that "X" [lacks leadership] [cannot be blamed] for "Y" - this structure is perfect and has no errors.

Hence, (A) is the right choice here.


(B) That the consumer products division has a lack in credible leadership cannot be blamed -

[ That "X" has a lack in.... cannot be blamed ].... - here, 'lack' is used as a noun whereas it's intended use is as a verb. Hence, (B) is eliminated.


(C) The consumer products division lacks credible leadership cannot be blamed - "X" lacks " credible leadership" cannot be blamed..... - Here, it is unclear as to what cannot be blamed for "Y". "X" cannot be blamed for "Y"? credible leadership cannot be blamed for "Y"? For this ambiguity, (C) is eliminated.


(D) The lack of credible leadership of the consumer products division is not blaming - The lack of credible leadership of X is not blaming for Y - My God. This is a terribly awkward sentence. X is not blaming for Y? How does that even make sense? (D) is eliminated.

(E) It is not blameworthy that the consumer products division lacks credible leadership - leadership for company's troubles? that doesn't make sense. Hence, eliminate (E)

jaisonsunny77, I still do not understand why C is wrong.

It clearly says---- The consumer products division lacks credible leadership cannot be blamed for the company's troubles.

"The consumer products division" is subject of "LACKS"
"The consumer products division lacks credible leadership" is subject of "cannot be blamed"

XYZ cannot be blamed for the company's troubles.

I don't see any issue with option C. What am I missing ? Can anyone please let me know why option C is wrong.

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A): Issues tested: Sentence Structure, Meaning

Glance at the beginning of the underline and the beginning of each answer. The subject of the sentence changes from That to The … division to It. The problem may be testing sentence structure or meaning.

Next, read for meaning and find a starting point. It likely sounds funny to have that be the subject, but the structure is correct. It is the equivalent of saying The fact that the division lacks credible leadership cannot be blamed for its troubles, or This fact cannot be blamed for the company’s troubles.

There are no other errors in the original sentence, but examine the other choices regardless. Because the original sentence did not provide a starting point, read answer (B) completely. Choice (B) is the equivalent of saying The fact that the division has a lack … cannot blame the company’s troubles. The lack of credible leadership can’t blame something else; it can only be blamed for something. Answer (D) repeats this same error, so both (B) and (D) can be eliminated.

Answer (C) changes the subject: The division lacks leadership cannot be blamed. The sentence jams two verbs together without any kind of connecting word in between, the equivalent of saying The pot contains soup cannot be heated. Eliminate (C).

The reordering of the sentence in choice (E) creates an illogical meaning: It is not blameworthy that the division lacks leadership for the company’s troubles. First, the sentence is saying that nobody is to blame for the lack of solid leadership. Next, it is saying that nobody is leading the company’s troubles. Presumably, you want someone to lead the division out of trouble, not simply to preside over the troubles and let them continue

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.