GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 20 Jun 2019, 13:12

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

VP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1335
The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 30 May 2018, 09:06
1
13
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

54% (01:32) correct 46% (01:42) wrong based on 445 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

(A) quota with no commitment to minority hiring and eventually promoting

(B) quota, having 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

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

I chose D, but the OA is C. Can someone please explain why? I didn't choose C because I thought it's missing the relative pronoun "that." How come option C is not written this way:

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

why is option C not written this way? cause i don't see how option C makes sense the way it is written. help!

Originally posted by tarek99 on 15 Mar 2008, 11:29.
Last edited by Bunuel on 30 May 2018, 09:06, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic, edited the question and added the OA.
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 384
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2008, 12:12
1
I got C for parallelism.
I think the presence of 'that it' would be redundant here.
_________________
-Underline your question. It takes only a few seconds!
-Search before you post.
VP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1335
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2008, 13:55
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?
Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 230
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2008, 17:26
2
1
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
Director
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 917
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2010, 10:20
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?

_________________
The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings
Manager
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 126
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Nov 2010, 16:09
noboru wrote:
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?

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.
Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4771
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Nov 2010, 10:23
I looked at it this way. The word order in Choice A, B, D and E, with the modifier phrase touching the noun quota, with or without comma, gives the feeling the that it is the quota that is not having the commitment blah blah rather than the law firm. C is the only one that corrects this fatal error by inserting the conjunction ‘and’. This indeed breaks the tyranny of the modifier issue.Thus C is the answer. I couldn’t cut shorter than this.
_________________
The Take-Away: Grammar First and Then the Rest
Veritas Prep Representative
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 413
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Nov 2010, 12:05
4
Good discussion, all - a quick word on D:

When you're using a present-tense verb, participial modifier (like "not reflecting..." here), it generally (or at least often) modifies the subject of the sentence. Here, that would be illogical - "not reflecting" doesn't describe the attorney or his/her decision, so D at best introduces some confusion as to the referent of the modifier (which should correspond to the quota).

Because C leaves no such room for doubt, it's correct.
_________________
Brian

Curriculum Developer, Instructor, and Host of Veritas Prep On Demand

Save \$100 on live Veritas Prep GMAT Courses and Admissions Consulting

Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.

Veritas Prep Reviews
Director
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 917
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2010, 13:50
I cannot agree with that. "not reflecting" could be an adverbial modifier modifying the whole previous clause.
What do you think on that?

VeritasPrepBrian wrote:
Good discussion, all - a quick word on D:

When you're using a present-tense verb, participial modifier (like "not reflecting..." here), it generally (or at least often) modifies the subject of the sentence. Here, that would be illogical - "not reflecting" doesn't describe the attorney or his/her decision, so D at best introduces some confusion as to the referent of the modifier (which should correspond to the quota).

Because C leaves no such room for doubt, it's correct.

_________________
The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings
Veritas Prep Representative
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Posts: 413
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2010, 15:08
2
1
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).
_________________
Brian

Curriculum Developer, Instructor, and Host of Veritas Prep On Demand

Save \$100 on live Veritas Prep GMAT Courses and Admissions Consulting

Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.

Veritas Prep Reviews
Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2010
Posts: 173
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GPA: 3.59
WE: Corporate Finance (Entertainment and Sports)
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2010, 12:38
Couldn't you also argue that the words "not reflecting" is modifying quota, but should be modifying offer?

noboru wrote:
ok, i agree, i see your point.

VeritasPrepBrian wrote:
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).
Intern
Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Posts: 23
Location: Boston
Schools: Boston College, MIT, BU, IIM, UCLA, Babson, Brown
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2010, 12:49
I think C is the answer due to parallelism and proper sentence structure
Director
Joined: 16 Jul 2009
Posts: 917
Schools: CBS
WE 1: 4 years (Consulting)
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2010, 12:52
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.

USCTrojan2006 wrote:
Couldn't you also argue that the words "not reflecting" is modifying quota, but should be modifying offer?

noboru wrote:
ok, i agree, i see your point.

VeritasPrepBrian wrote:
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).

_________________
The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings
Intern
Joined: 22 Jun 2012
Posts: 20
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 680 Q48 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.2
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)
The attorney turned down the law firm's offer of a position  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Feb 2013, 10:54
1
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.

keerthi
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2852

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2013, 21:53
1
keerthisaran wrote:
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.

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.
_________________
Director
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 776
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2015, 00:27
why A is wrong.

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

pls help
Intern
Joined: 10 Jul 2016
Posts: 49
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 May 2018, 09:01
1
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
Director
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 735
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2018, 10:15
i think d is more logic than c.
not reflecting is resulf of is meant to fil...

so d, not c is correct
Manager
Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Posts: 116
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Operations
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V31
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jun 2018, 11:15
(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==================
Intern
Joined: 12 Mar 2018
Posts: 49
Location: Iran (Islamic Republic of)
GPA: 3.64
WE: Management Consulting (Energy and Utilities)
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Nov 2018, 09:36
egmat wrote:
keerthisaran wrote:
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.

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.

Dear egmat
Thanks for explanation.
Please notice that you misplaced options C & D among answer choices!
Re: The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because sh   [#permalink] 27 Nov 2018, 09:36

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 22 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by