Here's the
official explanation provided by the GMAC for this question:
The original version of the sentence has multiple ambiguities that make it impossible to tell just what meaning the author intended to convey. The entire portion of the sentence after
attrition could modify
attrition. The portion after
benefits (
and a special early-retirement program) could refer to the second of two things that the agreement permits. Furthermore, the structure of the sentence makes it unclear whether
it in the final phrase
for speeding it up refers to the agreement or the attrition. The sentence needs to be restructured in a way that expresses a clear meaning. The best answer choice is B because it will be the one in which the wording resolves the ambiguities in the wording without creating any additional issues.
Option A: As explained above, this has multiple ambiguities that make it impossible to tell just what meaning the author intended to convey. The entire portion of the sentence after
attrition could modify
attrition, or the portion after
benefits (
and a special early-retirement program) could refer to the second of two things that the agreement permits. Furthermore, the structure of the sentence makes it unclear whether
it in the final phrase
for speeding it up refers to the agreement or the attrition.
Option B: Correct. This clearly expresses the idea that the agreement calls for two things, expressed by two noun phrases in parallel: increased pension benefits and an early-retirement program whose purpose is to speed up the attrition.
Option C: This makes either
attrition or
staff reductions through attrition the subject of both
will be speeded up; and
providing, thus appearing to say, illogically, that the attrition or the staff reductions will provide increased pension benefits and an early retirement program and will thereby speed up.
Option D: This wording is incoherent. The intended referents of
which and
their are unclear. The only grammatically plausible antecedent for the plural
their is the plural noun phrase
staff reductions. Thus, the sentence appears to say, illogically, that the staff reductions will provide increased pension benefits and an early-retirement program and will thereby speed some unspecified process.
Option E: This makes
which appear to refer illogically to attrition, thus saying that attrition provides increased benefits and an early-retirement program to speed itself up. Alternatively,
which could be read as referring to the fact that the labor agreement permits staff reductions through attrition, but this reading would also be illogical—that fact could not plausibly provide pension benefits or an early-retirement program.
The correct answer is B.
Please note that I'm not the author of this explanation. I'm just posting it here since I believe it can help the community.
_________________
01 Aug 2019, 00:36
60%
(01:39)
correct 
close
