The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh

I got C for parallelism.
I think the presence of 'that it' would be redundant here.

then how come there are many other examples of question sentences that would repeat "that it", but is considered redundant in this question? Isn't it considered parallel to repeat relative pronouns in order to secure clarity?

for option c: quota and (that it) did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion

I think that is not required above because it is a single clause. What you say would have been correct for the following.

for option c: quota,(comma) and that it did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion.

In the above two ICs are joined using "and" and we need a clear pronoun in the second sentense.

Well .... a example I can make out
He went back to home and slept.
He went back to home, and he slept.

..... is my explanation that bad

OA is C. However I dont understand why there are 2 clasues:
- suspected that it was meant merely to fill an affirmative action quota
- did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion

For me the second can be like a consequence of the first so the subordinate clause in D sounds perfect for me.

Could anybody explain this point?

Thanks in advance.

C is correct for parallelism and meaning. You can say ...she suspected it...and did not reflect in one sentence referring back to the original point however when you use D its contruction ",...not reflecting" what is not reflecting? the law firms choice or her suspicion? "not reflecting" cannot modify all that comes before it thats why you need to use 2 clauses here. Hope it makes sense.

I cannot agree with that. "not reflecting" could be an adverbial modifier modifying the whole previous clause.
What do you think on that?

thanks in advance!

Hey noburu,

Good point - and, actually, I think that gets to the crux of the issue here. We can disagree on the function of that modifier: I say that it could very well modify the attorney, you can claim that it's supposed to modify the clause immediately prior. The point is that there is room for debate - honestly, I can't say that either of is right or wrong, which is why D is incorrect. Because it leaves that ambiguity, it's not an effective modifier (particularly when compared to C, which leaves no room for doubt).

Couldn't you also argue that the words "not reflecting" is modifying quota, but should be modifying offer?

I think C is the answer due to parallelism and proper sentence structure

I could argue that the modifier "not reflecting" can modify "offer", "quota", "attorney" (which would not make any sense) or "the whole previous clause"; and because of that, I have learned that there is ambiguity and therefore is wrong.

And I agree that it should modify offer.

The attorney turned down the law firm's offer of a position because she suspected that it was meant merely to fill an affirmative action quota with no commitment to minority hiring and eventually promoting .
(C) quota and did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion

(D) quota, not reflecting a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion

can u please shed more light on how d is wrong here.

thanks in advance,

keerthi

Hi Keerthi,

In choice C, the comma + verb-ing modifier "not reflecting" modifies the preceding clause. So either this modifier will present additional information about the how aspect of the verb or will present the result of the action in the preceding clause.

If it presents the how aspect of the verb in the preceding clause, then this modification does not make sense to say that the offer was meant by not reflecting a commitment.

If this modifier presents the result of the preceding clause then the sentence will mean that the offer was meant resulting into not reflecting the commitment. In both cases the modification is illogical.

Choice D on the other hand presents the characteristics of the offer in parallel structure - the verbs and makes complete sense.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

why A is wrong.

"with..." is correct because it is adverbial here.

pls help

A: Quota with no commitment -- it is not quota without commitment but the position is with no commitment.
B: having no commitment -- Clause, verb+ing shows the cause and effect relationship or describes the clause. Here it is neither cause-effect nor description rather the continuation of what has been said before.
D: Out
E: Out

i think d is more logic than c.
not reflecting is resulf of is meant to fil...

so d, not c is correct

(A) quota with no commitment to minority hiring and eventually promoting
--> minority hiring and eventually promoting is wrong. Promotion should be the right word.

(B) quota, having no commitment to minority hiring and eventually promoting
--> Same as A

(C) quota and did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion
--> Correct. minority hiring and eventual promotion is the correct usage.

(D) quota, not reflecting a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion
--> reflecting is not a consequence of quota. This sentence seems saying this.

(E) quota, not one that reflected that minority hiring and eventual promotion was a commitment
--> Wordy

=============Hit +1 Kudos if that helped==================

Dear egmat
Thanks for explanation.
Please notice that you misplaced options C & D among answer choices!