It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 20:36

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Status: struggling with GMAT
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 205

Kudos [?]: 435 [1], given: 46

Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65
The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Mar 2013, 14:49
1
KUDOS
13
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

46% (06:58) correct 54% (01:02) wrong based on 436 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and so inflexible that they refuse to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when justifiable.

(A)they refuse to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when
(B)it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when it is
(C)it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are
(D)permitting leaves of absences is not discussed even when
(E)discussion of permitting leaves of absences is refused even when they will be

Need explanation...................
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 435 [1], given: 46

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4426

Kudos [?]: 8451 [4], given: 102

Re: The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2013, 12:04
4
KUDOS
Expert's post
mun23 wrote:
The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and so inflexible that they refuse to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when justifiable.
(A) they refuse to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when
(B) it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when it is
(C) it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are
(D) permitting leaves of absences is not discussed even when
(E) discussion of permitting leaves of absences is refused even when they will be

Need explanation...................

I'm happy to help.

Classic pronoun issues. The subject, "board", is singular, and correctly has the singular verb "follows" ---- even though this board presumably is made up multiple people, those people are not mentioned explicitly, and therefore it is 100% illegal to use a plural pronoun referring to them. To refer to the board, we must use a singular pronoun. That's why (A) is dead wrong.

(D) & (E) are horrible weak & wordy passive constructions. The GMAT generally does not approve of passive constructions when something active is possible. Here's a blog on this issue:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/active-vs- ... -the-gmat/

Another issue with (A) & (D) --- the GMAT SC doesn't like the construction [

(B) contains another pronoun issue --- "leaves of absence" is plural, and (B) uses the singular pronoun "it" to refer to them.

Choice (C) gets all the pronoun correct, and it is active, direct, and powerful. It is the best answer.

Does all this make sense?

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Kudos [?]: 8451 [4], given: 102

Manager
Status: struggling with GMAT
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 205

Kudos [?]: 435 [0], given: 46

Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65
Re: The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2013, 15:23
mikemcgarry wrote:
mun23 wrote:
The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and so inflexible that they refuse to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when justifiable.
(A) they refuse to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when
(B) it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when it is
(C) it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are
(D) permitting leaves of absences is not discussed even when
(E) discussion of permitting leaves of absences is refused even when they will be

Need explanation...................

I'm happy to help.

Classic pronoun issues. The subject, "board", is singular, and correctly has the singular verb "follows" ---- even though this board presumably is made up multiple people, those people are not mentioned explicitly, and therefore it is 100% illegal to use a plural pronoun referring to them. To refer to the board, we must use a singular pronoun. That's why (A) is dead wrong.

(D) & (E) are horrible weak & wordy passive constructions. The GMAT generally does not approve of passive constructions when something active is possible. Here's a blog on this issue:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/active-vs- ... -the-gmat/

Another issue with (A) & (D) --- the GMAT SC doesn't like the construction [

(B) contains another pronoun issue --- "leaves of absence" is plural, and (B) uses the singular pronoun "it" to refer to them.

Choice (C) gets all the pronoun correct, and it is active, direct, and powerful. It is the best answer.

Does all this make sense?

Mike

Hi Mike
whats the problem with sentence A&D`s construction...............Whats the use of "even when"

Whats the difference between even when justifiable and even when it is justifiable ?

Kudos [?]: 435 [0], given: 46

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4426

Kudos [?]: 8451 [6], given: 102

Re: The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2013, 16:02
6
KUDOS
Expert's post
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
mun23 wrote:
The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and so inflexible that they refuse to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when justifiable.
(A) they refuse to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when
(B) it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when it is
(C) it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are
(D) permitting leaves of absences is not discussed even when
(E) discussion of permitting leaves of absences is refused even when they will be

Hi Mike
whats the problem with sentence A&D`s construction...............Whats the use of "even when"

Whats the difference between even when justifiable and even when it is justifiable?

Dear mun23 ----
I'm sorry, I was interrupted in the middle of writing that, and I completely forget to explain that section. My apologies.

The word "when" is a subordinate conjunction --- its role is to introduce a subordinate clause. Like any clause, a subordinate clause has a full [noun]+[verb] that, without the word when, could stand on its own as a complete sentence. Thus, the construction "when it is justifiable" is perfectly correct, because we have a full [noun]+[verb] clause following the word when --- the clause "it is justifiable" could stand on its own as a complete [noun]+[verb] sentence.

The GMAT does not approve of the structure [subordinate conjunction]+[adjective]:
= when justified
= although tired
= while hesitant
etc. etc.
These are very common in colloquial American speech, but they do not conform to the formal standards of the GMAT. Choices (A) & (D) make this mistake.

Does that make sense?

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Kudos [?]: 8451 [6], given: 102

Manager
Status: struggling with GMAT
Joined: 06 Dec 2012
Posts: 205

Kudos [?]: 435 [0], given: 46

Concentration: Accounting
GMAT Date: 04-06-2013
GPA: 3.65
Re: The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2013, 16:24
mikemcgarry wrote:
mun23 wrote:
The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and so inflexible that they refuse to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when justifiable.
(A) they refuse to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when
(B) it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when it is
(C) it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are
(D) permitting leaves of absences is not discussed even when
(E) discussion of permitting leaves of absences is refused even when they will be

Hi Mike
whats the problem with sentence A&D`s construction...............Whats the use of "even when"

Whats the difference between even when justifiable and even when it is justifiable?

Dear mun23 ----
I'm sorry, I was interrupted in the middle of writing that, and I completely forget to explain that section. My apologies.

The word "when" is a subordinate conjunction --- its role is to introduce a subordinate clause. Like any clause, a subordinate clause has a full [noun]+[verb] that, without the word when, could stand on its own as a complete sentence. Thus, the construction "when it is justifiable" is perfectly correct, because we have a full [noun]+[verb] clause following the word when --- the clause "it is justifiable" could stand on its own as a complete [noun]+[verb] sentence.

The GMAT does not approve of the structure [subordinate conjunction]+[adjective]:
= when justified
= although tired
= while hesitant
etc. etc.
These are very common in colloquial American speech, but they do not conform to the formal standards of the GMAT. Choices (A) & (D) make this mistake.

Does that make sense?

Mike

Hi Mike
1 kudos for you.thanks for explanation

Kudos [?]: 435 [0], given: 46

Intern
Joined: 11 Jul 2013
Posts: 43

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 92

Re: The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2013, 00:23
mikemcgarry wrote:
mun23 wrote:
The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and so inflexible that they refuse to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when justifiable.
(A) they refuse to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when
(B) it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when it is
(C) it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are
(D) permitting leaves of absences is not discussed even when
(E) discussion of permitting leaves of absences is refused even when they will be

Hi Mike
whats the problem with sentence A&D`s construction...............Whats the use of "even when"

Whats the difference between even when justifiable and even when it is justifiable?

Dear mun23 ----
I'm sorry, I was interrupted in the middle of writing that, and I completely forget to explain that section. My apologies.

The word "when" is a subordinate conjunction --- its role is to introduce a subordinate clause. Like any clause, a subordinate clause has a full [noun]+[verb] that, without the word when, could stand on its own as a complete sentence. Thus, the construction "when it is justifiable" is perfectly correct, because we have a full [noun]+[verb] clause following the word when --- the clause "it is justifiable" could stand on its own as a complete [noun]+[verb] sentence.

The GMAT does not approve of the structure [subordinate conjunction]+[adjective]:
= when justified
= although tired
= while hesitant
etc. etc.
These are very common in colloquial American speech, but they do not conform to the formal standards of the GMAT. Choices (A) & (D) make this mistake.

Does that make sense?

Mike

Hi mike
C) it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are
Choice C is the best answer. But isn't permitting and to be taken redundant?

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 92

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4426

Kudos [?]: 8451 [1], given: 102

Re: The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2013, 10:27
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
domfrancondumas wrote:
Hi mike
C) it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are
Choice C is the best answer. But isn't permitting and to be taken redundant?

Dear domfrancondumas

I'm happy to help.

It's true that if we just had ...
(1) The board doesn't permit leaves of absence
(2) The board doesn't permit leaves of absence to be taken.
... then maybe we could argue that the extra phrase would be redundant and/or unnecessary. In this stripped down version, it's not perfectly clear, but one could make an argument that the phrase is redundant. BUT, we always must consider the full context of the sentence. Here's version (C):

(C) The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and so inflexible that it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are justifiable.

In this sentence we want to say that the board "refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences", and then we want to emphasize that it refuses discussing them even when these leaves of absences are justifiable. Consider version (C) without the words "to be taken" ---

(C') The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and so inflexible that it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when they are justifiable.

Hmmm. When it is justifiable to discuss the leave? When it is justifiable to permit the leave? When it is justifiable to take the leave? The "to be taken" makes crystal clear exactly what about the leaves is justifiable. Is this clarification necessary? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact that there's even a question about whether it could be necessary means that including it cannot be dismissed a redundant because the phrase may be serving a necessarily clarifying purpose for someone.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Kudos [?]: 8451 [1], given: 102

Intern
Joined: 11 Jul 2013
Posts: 43

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 92

Re: The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2013, 10:49
mikemcgarry wrote:
domfrancondumas wrote:
Hi mike
C) it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are
Choice C is the best answer. But isn't permitting and to be taken redundant?

Dear domfrancondumas

I'm happy to help.

It's true that if we just had ...
(1) The board doesn't permit leaves of absence
(2) The board doesn't permit leaves of absence to be taken.
... then maybe we could argue that the extra phrase would be redundant and/or unnecessary. In this stripped down version, it's not perfectly clear, but one could make an argument that the phrase is redundant. BUT, we always must consider the full context of the sentence. Here's version (C):

(C) The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and so inflexible that it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are justifiable.

In this sentence we want to say that the board "refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences", and then we want to emphasize that it refuses discussing them even when these leaves of absences are justifiable. Consider version (C) without the words "to be taken" ---

(C') The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and so inflexible that it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when they are justifiable.

Hmmm. When it is justifiable to discuss the leave? When it is justifiable to permit the leave? When it is justifiable to take the leave? The "to be taken" makes crystal clear exactly what about the leaves is justifiable. Is this clarification necessary? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact that there's even a question about whether it could be necessary means that including it cannot be dismissed a redundant because the phrase may be serving a necessarily clarifying purpose for someone.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Thanks a ton mike for the awesome explanation..
Yeah, now it does make sense and its clear..

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 92

Intern
Joined: 22 Aug 2014
Posts: 48

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 5

Re: The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Feb 2016, 06:58
Lets find out splits:
first 'it or they': the board is clearly singular; so, 'it' fits here - 'they' doesn't. So, A is out.
last 'it or they': the meaning of the sentence suggests that the antecedent here is 'leaves ' which is plural. So, B is out.
even when: after even when, we use clause; so, D is out and A is already dead.
So, A, B, D are all out.
'will be' or 'are': Using unnecessary future is awkward and distorts the meaning. So, E can be out for the tense issue. Moreover, in E, usage of passive after so adj that construction is really doubtful and seems both unnecessary and awkward.

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 5

VP
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1403

Kudos [?]: 159 [0], given: 916

Re: The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Feb 2016, 22:06
mun23 wrote:
The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and so inflexible that they refuse to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when justifiable.

(A)they refuse to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when
(B)it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when it is
(C)it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are
(D)permitting leaves of absences is not discussed even when
(E)discussion of permitting leaves of absences is refused even when they will be

Need explanation...................

it take me 3 minute to do this question.
in A, when justifiable refers to they, which refers to policies. no sense
in B , it is justifiable make no sense. leaves should be justifiable.
in d, when justifiable refer to leaves. no sense.
in E, "will" is not used in time clause,
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

Kudos [?]: 159 [0], given: 916

Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2016
Posts: 76

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 163

Re: The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2016, 01:08
mikemcgarry wrote:
mun23 wrote:
The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and so inflexible that they refuse to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when justifiable.
(A) they refuse to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when
(B) it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when it is
(C) it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are
(D) permitting leaves of absences is not discussed even when
(E) discussion of permitting leaves of absences is refused even when they will be

Need explanation...................

I'm happy to help.

Classic pronoun issues. The subject, "board", is singular, and correctly has the singular verb "follows" ---- even though this board presumably is made up multiple people, those people are not mentioned explicitly, and therefore it is 100% illegal to use a plural pronoun referring to them. To refer to the board, we must use a singular pronoun. That's why (A) is dead wrong.

(D) & (E) are horrible weak & wordy passive constructions. The GMAT generally does not approve of passive constructions when something active is possible. Here's a blog on this issue:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/active-vs- ... -the-gmat/

Another issue with (A) & (D) --- the GMAT SC doesn't like the construction [

(B) contains another pronoun issue --- "leaves of absence" is plural, and (B) uses the singular pronoun "it" to refer to them.

Choice (C) gets all the pronoun correct, and it is active, direct, and powerful. It is the best answer.

Does all this make sense?

Mike

Hi mike!
I read the options differently. I was thinking that "it" in option B is indicating the "discussion" and discussion is something that is justifiable. Can you tell me if there is some way to avoid such mistakes.
Thanks

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 163

Intern
Joined: 20 Jun 2012
Posts: 13

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 3

Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.11
Re: The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2016, 04:40
mikemcgarry wrote:
domfrancondumas wrote:
Hi mike
C) it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are
Choice C is the best answer. But isn't permitting and to be taken redundant?

Dear domfrancondumas

I'm happy to help.

It's true that if we just had ...
(1) The board doesn't permit leaves of absence
(2) The board doesn't permit leaves of absence to be taken.
... then maybe we could argue that the extra phrase would be redundant and/or unnecessary. In this stripped down version, it's not perfectly clear, but one could make an argument that the phrase is redundant. BUT, we always must consider the full context of the sentence. Here's version (C):

(C) The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and so inflexible that it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences to be taken even when they are justifiable.

In this sentence we want to say that the board "refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences", and then we want to emphasize that it refuses discussing them even when these leaves of absences are justifiable. Consider version (C) without the words "to be taken" ---

(C') The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and so inflexible that it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when they are justifiable.

Hmmm. When it is justifiable to discuss the leave? When it is justifiable to permit the leave? When it is justifiable to take the leave? The "to be taken" makes crystal clear exactly what about the leaves is justifiable. Is this clarification necessary? Maybe, maybe not, but the fact that there's even a question about whether it could be necessary means that including it cannot be dismissed a redundant because the phrase may be serving a necessarily clarifying purpose for someone.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Mike

Option B can be justified in following way:

It is a pronoun which refers to the previous singular noun or acting noun i.e. GERUND "permitting" , which makes sense with the word justifiable thereby meaning that permitting was justifiable but board is not ready to discuss it.

I understand that first "it" refers to the board correctly.

Does this make sense?? Kindly point out error in my reasoning.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 3

Math Forum Moderator
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 3003

Kudos [?]: 1088 [0], given: 325

Location: India
GPA: 3.5
Re: The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2016, 07:55
Virgo wrote:

Option B can be justified in following way:

It is a pronoun which refers to the previous singular noun or acting noun i.e. GERUND "permitting" , which makes sense with the word justifiable thereby meaning that permitting was justifiable but board is not ready to discuss it.

I understand that first "it" refers to the board correctly.

Does this make sense?? Kindly point out error in my reasoning.

Please go through mikemcgarry 's explanation -

Quote:
(B) contains another pronoun issue --- "leaves of absence" is plural, and (B) uses the singular pronoun "it" to refer to them.

Hope this helps...

_________________

Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )

Kudos [?]: 1088 [0], given: 325

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4426

Kudos [?]: 8451 [1], given: 102

The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2016, 11:28
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
Virgo wrote:
Mike

Option B can be justified in following way:

It is a pronoun which refers to the previous singular noun or acting noun i.e. GERUND "permitting" , which makes sense with the word justifiable thereby meaning that permitting was justifiable but board is not ready to discuss it.

I understand that first "it" refers to the board correctly.

Does this make sense?? Kindly point out error in my reasoning.

Dear Virgo,

I'm happy to respond.

I will say a couple things. First of all , here's the ending of option (B)
... refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when it is justifiable.
Many students make the mistake of view grammar as a kind of mathematical exercise, without taking into account other layers of the sentence. In fact, grammar is always rooted in logic and meaning, which are the truly powerful currents in a sentence. Grammar is a surface feature that simply reflects these depths.
Think about the situation. What is the controversial item? The "leaves of absences" provide the hot controversy here. Are they permitted or not? Are we even going to discuss whether they are permitted? The "leaves of absences" are the focal point of this controversy. Thus, when we specifying the parameters of this controversy, it makes the most sentence to focus on the heart of the controversy---even when the leaves of absences are justifiable. It would be rhetorically & logically awkward to end that sentence: "even when permitting the leaves of absences is justifiable." That is somewhat awkward phrasing, and also it sounds evasive: why are we shifting the focus to something other than the heart of the controversy? Anything that sounds evasive sound indirect, and the business world & the GMAT like clear, forthright, direct language. Any sensible person would not do business with someone who seemed to be hiding something, and the language preferences on the GMAT reflect this. These ideas form one important consideration about option (B).

A much more tangible consideration in (B):
... it refuses to discuss permitting leaves of absences even when it is justifiable.
The same pronoun typically cannot refer to two different antecedents in the same sentence. If there are two independent clauses, and the pronoun uses are separate enough, then sometimes this is OK. In this sentence, though, the use is too close, and the same pronoun is referring to two different things. That's an automatic disqualifier on the GMAT SC.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Kudos [?]: 8451 [1], given: 102

The board follows policies that are unreasonably strict and   [#permalink] 26 Sep 2016, 11:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by