The Life and Casualty Company hopes that by increasing its environment

KarishmaB
why we cannot seperate "have" and "to"?? Is it an idiomatic error?
why the position of “no longer” after “will have” is incorrect in B?

Yes, the structures are: "will have to" or "won't have to".
We don't write "will have not to".

KarishmaB
This is helpful, but I am a bit confused on the comma placement here. With "it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have to use its profits and capital to pay those claims bit by bit" being offset by commas on both sides, doesn't that mean this part is non-essential? However, you need this for the sentence to be complete. You can't just have "The Life and Casualty Company hopes that by increasing its environmental fund reserves to $1.2 billion year by year."
Any guidance would be greatly appreciated

woohoo921

A comma is just a pause and has many uses. Everytime something is between two commas, it is not a non-essential modifier. The two commas could be serving two different purposes.

For example:

Beyond that though, China may be hard pressed to truly deepen its economic ties with Russia, at least any time soon.

'China may be hard pressed to truly deepen its economic ties with Russia' is certainly not a non essential modifier. The first comma separates the prepositional phrase from the main clause (the main clause is 'China may be hard ...' ) and the second comma separates a modifier.

Look at our original sentence:
The Life and Casualty Company hopes that by increasing its environmental fund revenues to $1.2 billion, it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have to use its profits and capital to pay those claims bit by bit, year by year.

Main Clause - The Life and Casualty Company hopes X.

X - by increasing its environmental fund revenues to $1.2 billion, it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have to use its profits and capital to pay those claims bit by bit, year by year.

X is 'that clause'.

by increasing its environmental fund revenues to $1.2 billion - Prepositional phrase
it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have to use its profits and capital to pay those claims bit by bit, year by year - main clause of 'that' clause

Correct Option E:

The Life and Casualty Company hopes that by increasing
its environmental fund revenues to $1.2 billion,
it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have to use
its profits and capital to pay those claims bit by bit, year by year

Subject: The Life and Casualty Company
Verb: hopes
Pronoun: It / Its

GMATNinja
For Choice A, the Official Guide says that using an additional "that" makes the sentence ungrammatical.

In Manhattan Prep's All the Verbal book, there is this example ???Citizens are expressing concern about the environmental damage ??? such as flooding and wildfires ??? caused by the widespread release of greenhouse gasses, DAMAGE THAT may be impossible to reverse???
The writer wants to provide more info on the damage, but the noun is far away from the end of the sentence. Therefore, saying ???damage that??? clarifies what the author is trying to say."

In my view, the "it" seems far away from the Life and Casualty company / you can potentially see the "it" as referring to the environmental fund revenues. I can see the use of the "that" as building parallel structure and more clearly refers to the Life and Casualty Company's actions --> The Life and Casual Company hopes that X and that Y.

Your insights as to why this is incorrect would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time.

The two uses of 'that' are very different, here. Repeating 'damages' does clarify that the sentence is referencing the 'damages' it mentioned much earlier in the sentence, and then the modifier 'that' is going to give additional information about the damages.

'It' cannot be the 'revenues.' 'Revenues' are plural. There is no other antecedent for 'it' to be, nor is the pronoun too far away to take the 'company' as the antecedent. The structure is quite clear:

"The company hopes that by doing something it achieves [something]."

The double use of 'that' also does not build parallelism, nor *should* it.

What does the company hope for? 'by increasing its revenues' is a modifier, but that's not what the company hopes for. It hopes that SOMETHING WILL HAPPEN [by means of increasing the revenues]. What does it hope? It hopes that it has set aside enough to pay for claims and doesn't need money for all these other things yada yada. Mostly: it hopes that it has set aside enough. The modifier 'by increasing its environmental fund revenues to 1.2 billion' is distraction, so I don't need a duplicate 'that.'

The right structure looks like:

"The company hopes that [by doing something] it has set aside enough [to do something]."

A's structure looks like:

"The company hopes that [by doing something] that it has set aside enough [to do something]."





The Life and Casualty Company hopes that by increasing its environmental fund revenues to $1.2 billion, that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has to use its profits and capital to pay those claims bit by bit, year by year.


(A) that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has

(B) enough has been set aside with which environmental claims can be paid and it will have no longer

(C) it has set aside enough for payment of environmental claims and thus no longer having

(D) enough has been set aside to pay for environmental claims, thus no longer having

(E) it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have

• The GMAT does not test pronoun ambiguity. So, if you get the thought that a pronoun is supposedly 'ambiguous', just ignore those thoughts—they won't help you identify anything that's actually wrong, and (as is the case here!) you may come to wrong conclusions.

• "Revenues" is plural, so there's no possible issue here in the first place. "It" can only stand for nouns that are singular.

Thank you so much for your incredibly thorough explanation. Your Manhattan Prep video on parallelism has been so helpful in my studies, as parallelism has been something that I have struggled with.

I hate to be a pain, but I have a follow-up question that is potentially very silly...

Could "that it" refer back to the Life and Casualty Company as a filler given the various uses of "that"?

The Life and Casualty Company hopes that by increasing its environmental fund revenues to $1.2 billion, that the Life and Casualty Company has set aside...

(A) that it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and no longer has - that by increasing… lacks subject. Additional that makes sentence ungrammatical

(B) enough has been set aside with which environmental claims can be paid and it will have no longer - enough is not a logical subject of use

(C) it has set aside enough for payment of environmental claims and thus no longer having - Use of it is correct but and thus no longer…. Lacks main verb.

(D) enough has been set aside to pay for environmental claims, thus no longer having - same as B

(E) it has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims and will no longer have - correct choice. Use of "it" is correct. "will no longer have..." correctly refer to "it" and to company ultimately.

daagh @gmatclub GMATNinja sayantanc2k @bunnel Can anyone tell me how the use of "it" as a relative pronoun is correct here - as whenever it is used, the antecedent must be close it while the antecedent is not close here. Second, I have seen in most 700 + level questions that mostly GMAT confuses the right option with the wrong use of "it" as a relative pronoun. But here, the use of "it" is correct. Is this because there is only one anteceden there and that antecdent is separated by it , through only one prepositional phrase. Is this the reaosn its use is correct here ?

tayyab2022

First, there's no rule that the pronoun needs to be anywhere near the antecedent. The only requirement is that the meaning be clear. As long as we can tell what IT refers to, and as long as that thing is an actual singular noun in the sentence, then IT is fine. Quite often, the structure will help with clarity. In this case, "The Life and Casualty Company" is already set up as the subject. Then we have an adverbial modifier ("by increasing . . . "), so when we see IT, we should expect this to refer back to the subject, since the company is the one doing the action. We'd only be likely to have trouble if IT were supposed to refer to something else.

I should add that "it" is just a pronoun, not a relative pronoun. Relative pronouns, such as "who," "that," and "those," are typically used to create noun modifiers ("the person WHO cut my hair") or to refer back to an earlier noun without its modifiers ("The birds here are more aggressive than THOSE in my neighborhood."). Pronouns such as it/they just do the normal pronoun job of standing in for a noun in the sentence.