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

Hello PanpaliaAnshul,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your queries, your analysis is largely correct.

However, it would be more accurate to describe the error in Option E along the lines of "not one that reflected that minority hiring and eventual promotion was a commitment" incorrectly modifying "affirmative action quota".

Further, "not" is indeed an adverb in Option D because "reflecting" is a present participle ("verb+ing") that serves as an adjective.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-
Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that the law firm's offer was meant merely to fill an affirmative action, and it did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Parallelism

• In a “noun + comma + phrase” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun; this is one of the most frequently tested concepts on GMAT sentence correction.
• The introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “having” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
• Any elements linked by conjunction ("and" in this sentence) must be parallel.

A:
1/ This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "quota with no commitment to minority hiring"; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that the affirmative action quota had no commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion; the intended meaning is that the law firm's offer had no commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion.
2/ Option A fails to maintain parallelism between the gerund (noun) "hiring" and the verb "promoting"; remember, any elements linked by conjunction ("and" in this sentence) must be parallel.

B:
1/ This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "having no commitment"; the use of the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "having" in this sentence)" construction incorrectly implies that the law firm's offer was meant merely to fill an affirmative action, because it did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion; the intended meaning is that the law firm's offer was meant merely to fill an affirmative action, and as a separate action it did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion; remember, the introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “having” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
2/ Option B fails to maintain parallelism between the gerund (noun) "hiring" and the verb "promoting"; remember, any elements linked by conjunction ("and" in this sentence) must be parallel.

C: Correct.
1/ This answer choice uses the phrase "and did not reflect", avoiding the modifier errors seen in Options B, D, and E and conveying the intended meaning - that the law firm's offer was meant merely to fill an affirmative action, and as a separate action it did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion.
2/ Option C maintains parallelism between the gerund (noun) "hiring" and the noun "promotion".
3/ Option C is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

D: Trap.
1/ This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "not reflecting a commitment"; the use of the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "having" in this sentence)" construction incorrectly implies that the law firm's offer was meant merely to fill an affirmative action, because it did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion; the intended meaning is that the law firm's offer was meant merely to fill an affirmative action, and as a separate action it did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion; remember, the introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “having” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.

E:
1/ This answer choice incorrectly modifies "quota" with "not one that reflected...commitment", incorrectly implying that the affirmative action quota had no commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion; the intended meaning is that the law firm's offer had no commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion; remember, in a “noun + comma + phrase” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun.
2/ Option E uses the needlessly wordy and indirect phrase "that minority hiring and eventual promotion was a commitment", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

Hence, C is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Phrase Comma Subject" and "Subject Comma Phrase" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Comma Plus Present Participle for Cause-Effect Relationship", you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team