The Life and Casualty Company hopes that by increasing its environment

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Concepts tested here: Tenses + Parallelism + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• The infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb”) is the preferred construction for referring to the purpose/intent of an action.
• The simple future tense is used to refer to actions that will take place in the future.
• The simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature.
• Any elements linked by a conjunction (“and” in this sentence) must be parallel.

A: This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple present tense verb “has” to refer to an action that will take place in the future; please remember, the simple future tense is used to refer to actions that will take place in the future, and the simple present tense is used to indicate actions taking place in the current time frame, indicate habitual actions, state universal truths, and convey information that is permanent in nature. Further, Option A redundantly uses the word “that”, rendering it awkward and needlessly wordy; this usage is redundant, as “that” can be deleted without a loss of clarity.

B: This answer choice uses the phrase “with which environmental claims can be paid” to refer to the purpose of the verb phrase “enough has been set aside”; remember, the infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb”) is the preferred construction for referring to the purpose/intent of an action. Further, Option B uses the passive voice construction “enough has been set aside”, leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

C: This answer choice incorrectly uses the present participle (“verb+ing” – “having” in this sentence) to refer to an action that will take place in the future; please remember, the simple future tense is used to refer to actions that will take place in the future. Further, Option C fails to maintain parallelism between “it has set aside enough for payment of environmental claims” and “no longer having to to use its profits...by year”; remember, any elements linked by a conjunction (“and” in this sentence) must be parallel. Additionally, Option C uses the phrase “for payment” to refer to the purpose of the action “set aside”; remember, the infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb”) is the preferred construction for referring to the purpose/intent of an action.

D: This answer choice incorrectly uses the present participle (“verb+ing” – “having” in this sentence) to refer to an action that will take place in the future; please remember, the simple future tense is used to refer to actions that will take place in the future. Further, Option D uses the passive voice construction “enough has been set aside”, leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

E: Correct. This answer choice correctly uses the simple future tense verb “will…have” to refer to an action that will take place in the future. Further, Option E maintains parallelism between “has set aside enough to pay for environmental claims” and “will no longer have to use its profits...by year”. Additionally, Option E uses the infinitive verb form (“to + base form of verb” – “to + pay” in this sentence) to refer to the purpose/intent of the action “set aside”. Besides, Option E is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

Hence, E is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

In this sentence, the underlined sentence starts with THAT and this is incorrectly referring to revenue or to company. IT must refer to company, and as per the sentence the company's intention is clearly visible that it is to has set aside...and no longer...
A. IT correctly referring to company...but at the end we have HAS ( Present tense), which is incorrect and it has to be HAVE as per future intention.
B. IT can refer to company and claims and pronoun must refer to only on antecedent.
C. For the payment is wrong.
D. No longer having is incorrect.
E. In this statement, we can find the INTENTION ( something is intended TO ) and IT properly refers to company and HAVE is correctly referring to future.

Option E is correct.

1) profits and capital require plural verb 'have'
2) 'The Life and Casualty Company hopes that by increasing its environmental fund revenues to $1.2 billion' is a fragment sentence followed by 'that', which is not correct.
3) 'Having to' is not right

E is the answer

Isn't it because of future tense 'Will have' to be used ?not because of 'profits and capital' ?

The issue with "A" is the redundancy of "that". Answer choice D uses incorrectly the gerund "having", and thus answer choice E is the only correct one.

Meaning: The company has increased revenues, has set aside enough funds and will not need to pay them bit by bit.
Coming to the options:

A: that is redundant here
B: not sure who has set aside the money
C: having is incorrect
D: Having is incorrect
E: Correct

Correct Option: E

1. Can you please explain why "having" is incorrect
2. Also, please through light on "will have" in option E. Why are we using "have" for the singular company?

If we change the option C to :" thus no longer have " will that be correct then ?

In my opinion, YES, but i m no expert.

Hi RK84, perhaps you meant: thus no longer has.

The thing is that on a stand-alone basis, it is hard to differentiate between enough for payment of environmental claims (option C) and enough to pay for environmental claims (option E).

However, here, there is a clue in the sentence, in the non-underlined portion: ....use its profits and capital to pay those claims......

Hence, for similarity of structure (one could call in parallelism), it would be better to use to pay (for environmental claims) in the underlined portion as well.

Hence, E would in any case, be better.

In option D, there is no subject "company"; the first part (before "and") is in passive voice.

No, it would be wrong. Verb "have" is plural, whereas subject "it" is singular.

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

Analysis:

A clear question of parallelism. The Life and Casualty Company by increasing…., The Life and Casualty Company has set…..and will no longer.

C in its full expansion

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

The basic problem with C is that the highlighted part is an unparallel fragment, with a verbed clause on the left of the conjunction 'and'' and a verb-less modifier phrase on the right.

I understood the meaning and selected E . However one issue which I felt is not addressed is the use of comma after 1.2 billion. The sentence before comma is not an independent sentence. Can we use comma after an dependent sentence? Please someone put some light on this.

The Life and Casualty Company Subject
hopes Verb
that The word “that” can be used as a subordinate conjunction, that is, as a word that marks the beginning of a dependent clause.  The dependent clause, like any clause, would have a full [noun] + [verb] structure(Copied from Magoosh)
by increasing its environmental fund revenues to $1.2 billion Modifier
, Modifier comma
it Subject Subordinate clause
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 verb +object Subordinate clause.

Hope this helps.

Also follow this article to decipher the mystery of that. https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-sent ... s-of-that/

Hi parthjain68, also enough has been set aside is a passive voice construct. So, option B does not explicitly mention who has set aside enough.