The normative model of strategic decision-making suggests that

This question is based on Parallelism and Construction.

In Option A, the phrase “in using the set of objective criteria they derive from these analyses” conveys the meaning that using the set of objective criteria is dependent on the decision about the strategy. The intended meaning is that the executives use the set of objective criteria to decide on a strategy. So, Option A can be ruled out.

The sentence conveys the idea that executives examine a firm’s external environment and internal conditions and decide on a strategy. However, in Option B, the two actions done by the executives are “examine a firm’s…” and “use the set of…”. The usage of the participle “deciding” is inappropriate after the verb ‘use’. This verb is usually followed by the infinitive ‘to use’. So, Option B can also be ruled out.

In Option C, the participle ‘deciding’ cannot be parallel to the verb ‘examine’. They should both be in the verb form as they convey the two actions done by the executives. So, Option C can also be ruled out.

Option D has the appropriate construction and idiomatic usage. By putting a modifier - using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses – in the middle, the intended meaning that executives decide upon a strategy using the set of objective criteria is conveyed. Parallelism in the form of the verbs ‘examine’ and ‘decide’ is also maintained in this option. So, D is the best of all the options.

Option E has the modifier “in their use of the set of objective criteria they derive from these analyses”, which changes the meaning just as the modifier in Option A does. It is also a wordy option. So, Option E can also be eliminated.

Jayanthi Kumar.

GMATNinja AjiteshArun GMATGuruNY MartyTargetTestPrep
Hello sir,
it seems that the explanation in highlighted part does not make sense! The highlighted part confused me. Using 'they' after the 'and' is perfectly fine. Can you clarify a bit here, please?
Thanks__

The normative model suggests that executives examine
Here, the blue verb is a suggested action and thus is HYPOTHETICAL
examine = an action that MIGHT NOT HAPPEN

COMMA + and + SUBJECT + VERB = independent clause
...conditions, and they use the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses
Here, the red verb in the independent clause is in the simple present tense and thus is a GENERAL TRUTH.
use = an action that DEFINITELY HAPPENS

This combination is illogical, implying that a HYPOTHETICAL action (examine) leads to an action that DEFINITELY happens (use).
Eliminate B.

OA: The normative model suggests that executives examine a firm’s external environment and decide on a strategy.
Here, the actions in green are both SUGGESTED.
As a result, both actions are HYPOTHETICAL.
This meaning is logical, conveying that one hypothetical action (examine) can result in a second hypothetical action (decide).

EducationAisle please could you comment on (B)

According to me, we have two ICs out here: "executives examine" & "they decide". These two ICs are rightly connected with ",and". So a few who have mentioned that "examine" is not parallel to "they decide" I don't agree with them.

So what is the issue with (B)? Is it the use of "in deciding"? If so, why?

Hi Hoozan, I am assuming you mean that the two ICs are: "executives examine" & "they use".


I would agree; there is no staggering grammatical error in B.


There is a larger meaning issue with B: executives examine <something> with the intent to decide <something-else>.

So, parallelism between examine and decide makes most sense; in B however, parallelism is between examine and use.

Much discussion on this one. And Im still not convinced. I see some different explanations from experts. And Im surprised it has 70 % correct answers when most questions with only 30-40 % correct answers have been easier and more straightforward.

To me, A can make perfectly sense.


The normative model of strategic decision-making suggests that
executives [first] examine a firm’s external environment and internal conditions,
and in using the set of objective criteria they derive from these analyses, [they] can [finally] decide on a strategy.

Ive added a couple of adverbs to make my interpretation clear.

Redundancy of the implied pronoun [they] is the only thing I can find for ruling out A. According to Google, both "in using" and "can decide" seem to be idiomatic.

Please?

Posted from my mobile device

egmat, GMATNinja - What is the error analysis for option B ?

The normative model of strategic decision-making suggests that executives examine a firm’s external environment and internal conditions, and they use the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses in deciding on a strategy.

-- X suggests that Y examine Z, and Y use something in deciding on a strategy - I do not understand the error here?

My 2 cents on this issue:->
I rejected B because D is present. In other words, I rejected B because B is not elegant as D

Example: Enigma went to school and studied very hard.
Would you say? --> Enigma went to school, and he studied very hard.

I hope it helps.

HI enigma1504

Refer to previous posts, Experts have already confirmed that 'They' is redundant and a more concise structure wouldn't repeat the same.
In addition, please also take a note that from a meaning point of view, these independent clauses (IC)

IC1: X suggests that Y examine Z
IC2: Y use something in deciding on a strategy

are stand-alone now, and not linked in this structure, that is, IC2 is no more a suggestion of X now.
So in order to maintain the meaning, it is imperative either to use a compound verb or to repeat 'that'

Is "comma + and" similar to "and + comma" when it connects two ICs as in this case?
EducationAisle mikemcgarry GMATNinja

Hello linuschoudhury,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can help resolve your doubt.

The "comma + conjunction ("and" in this sentence)" construction is used to join independent clauses. However, the "conjunction + comma" construction has no such use. In this sentence, "and" is used to list together the two actions - "examine" and "decide" - that "the normative model of strategic decision-making" suggests for "executives"; the comma following "and" is simply used to set off the modifying phrase "using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses", which modifies the verb "decide".

To understand the usage of the comma on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~3 minutes):



We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Hi egmat, mikemcgarry, AjiteshArun ,

Can you please help me to clear few doubts?

1. According to choice D, executives do two things
a. they examine. b. they decide.

However , as per my understanding of the sentence, the executives examine and then use that info to decide.
That is verb 'examine' and 'decide' cannot run parallel rather examination leads to decision.
and that's why D doesn't seem the best choice to me as per meaning.

2. Can we use additional info to show sequencing and make verbs parallel?

Thanks

Hi Ahmed9955,

And is not always a great way to show the logical connection between the first element and a later element. It's not impossible to use and like that, but we usually like to add a modifier to help establish that logical connection. For example:

1. X and therefore Y. ← The adverb therefore helps the reader understand that the second element is a result of the first (in other words, the first element is the reason for the second).

Similarly, option D uses a modifier after and.

2a. ... executives examine a firm’s external environment and internal conditions and, using the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses, decide on a strategy.

We should look at this as a list of two actions. To understand why, let's "unpack" that part of the sentence:

2b. ... [executives examine {X}] and [using {something derived from X}, they decide on a strategy].

We need to look at this as two different actions because the act of examining X cannot itself lead to a decision. Imagine that you're working with a team of analysts, and you ask them to determine the value of a target company. Their "examination" comes back to you, but the decision (whether to acquire the target or not) hasn't been made yet. It's a separate process that takes the "examination" as just one of many inputs. Similarly, we can read option D like this: {executives examine something and then (using something based on that examination) decide on a strategy}.

Hi,

In option B] can I say that 'ing verbal 'deciding' refers to 'analyses' And 'analysis' can not do the action of 'deciding' therefore wrong usage of modifier.

is there a problem in using two independent clauses from meaning point of view?

No. The modifier here is "IN deciding", which modifies the preceding action/clause ("they use the set of objective criteria..."). That's a correct use of the modifier.

The real problem with choice B is that it connects the two colored clauses, below, with "and":
The normative model of strategic decision-making suggests that executives examine a firm’s external environment and internal conditions, and they use the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses in deciding on a strategy.
This structure wrongly suggests that the two colored clauses represent SEPARATE ideas. Thus we end up saying that /1/ "The model suggests that executives do xxxx", and then /2/ "They [= executives] also do yyyy" (...in general? with no relation to the model?)
It's clear that both parts of the sentence describe things that are true in this model, so that's not a sensible way to write the sentence.



This version of the sentence would actually work if another "that" were present, creating a structure in which "the model suggests" applies to BOTH parallel clauses:
The normative model of strategic decision-making suggests that executives examine a firm’s external environment and internal conditions, and that they use the set of objective criteria derived from these analyses in deciding on a strategy.

This is going to be harder than I thought...

Hi egmat KarishmaB, with using as an -ing modifier, isn't it necessary to have the subject, who is doing the action of using, after using given the rule that -ing modifier must be succeded by a subject when -ing modifier is used in the beginning of the sentence . Can you please help me understand this?