The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its

The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell over the last two years.

(A) which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell

(B) which had increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it had fallen

(C) which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling

(D) with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after falling

(E) with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after having fallen


Hello. the correct answer is C. BUT is it correct idiom "increased %" ? shouldn't it be "increased BY %"

Both are alright - the idea would be clear if you consider the question forms:
1. BY what percent did X increase?: X increased BY 5%.
2. How much did X increase?: X increased 5%.

In the first case "5%" is a noun, the object of prepositional phrase "of 5%". The prepositional phrase "of 5%" as a whole is working as an adverbial phrase for the verb "increased".
In the second case "5%" itself is an adverb referring to the verb "increased".

Dear Mike,

after reading your reply in the thread, I would like to know, whether in the choice C "which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after had been falling" would be grammatically more correct, as the increase is occurring in a period after the period in which the profits were falling.

Thanks in advance

Dear oderebek,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, your question indicates some confusions on a few issues. The distinction of tenses, say past vs. present perfect vs. past perfect, is a distinction among full verbs. Full verbs and only full verb have the complete range of tenses.

In order for the "-ing" form of a verb to function as a full verb, it would have to be accompanied by some auxiliary verb
is falling = present progressive
was falling = past progressive
has been falling = present perfect progressive
had been falling = past perfect progressive
Those are all full verbs: any of them could be the main verb of an independent clause.

When "falling" appears by itself, without an auxiliary verb, it is NOT a full verb. It is participle or a gerund. There are present and past participles: present participles are alway active (e.g. buying, selling, hearing, seeing, etc.) and past participles are passive (e.g. bought, sold, heard, seen, etc.) The issue with tenses and participles is subtle, because the "present" participle actually can take on the tense of the main verb.
He entered town, driving well above the speed limit. (The "driving" is a past action.)
He is entering town right now, driving well above the speed limit. (The "driving" is a present action.)
I predict that he will enter town, driving well above the speed limit. (The "driving" is a future action.)

For GMAT purposes, gerunds don't have tense at all.

In this sentence, in the phrase "after falling," the word "after" is a preposition, and the object of a preposition has to be a noun or something acting in a noun-role. The form of a verb that acts in a noun-roll is a gerund, so "falling" here is a gerund, an grammatical form that inherently has no tense at all.

In your question, you asked if we start with a gerund, something that has absolutely no tense, can we add auxiliary verbs to it to give it a tense. With all due respect, my friend, do you see how what you were asking is grounded in multiple misunderstandings? Among other things, you were misunderstanding one part of speech, a gerund, for an entirely different part of speech, a full verb.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)

ANSWER CHOICE ANALYSIS
Choice A: The results of the company’s cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell over the last two years.
This choice has pronoun-antecedent number error as.

Choice B: The results of the company’s cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which had increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it had fallen over the last two years.
This choice has verb tense error. The verb tense “had increased” is written incorrectly in past perfect tense. The two events in the past are – falling of profits & increase in profits. The increase in profits is the later event. Thus, expressing it in past perfect tense is incorrect. Expressing the earlier event in past tense is correct – had fallen.

Also, this choice has pronoun-antecedent number error as in Choice A.

Choice C: The results of the company’s cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling over the last two years.
No error. In this sentence, the use of present perfect tense is justified since this tense presents an event that started in the past and whose effect is still valid in the present time frame. Furthermore, in this sentence, the second event “it fell” has been converted into a modifier that modifies the verb “have increased”. The modifier – after falling over the last two years – presents the sequencing for the verb “have increased” as intended.

Choice D: The results of the company’s cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after falling over the last two years.
This choice has modifier error. The modifier “with a five percent increase” non-sensically modifies the preceding clause. Per the intended meaning, it should modify the preceding noun – profits.

Choice E: The results of the company’s cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after having fallen over the last two years.
This choice has modifier error as in Choice D. It also uses unnecessarily passive verb tense – having fallen.

Thus, Choice C is the correct answer.

Hi,
Could anyone please elaborate on choices B and D. Why "with a five percent increase" is wrong in options D, E. However I eliminated E for tense "having fallen". I need a more detailed explanation of options B and D. Please help.

Hello yash321,

I will be glad to help you with you this one.

Errors in Choice B:

1. Verb Tense Error: The verb tense had increased is written incorrectly in past perfect tense. The two events in the past are – falling of profits and increase in profits. The increase in profits is the later event. Thus, expressing it in past perfect tense is incorrect. Expressing the earlier event in past tense is correct – had fallen.

2. Pronoun-Antecedent Number Error: The singular pronoun it has been used to refer to plural noun profits.


Errors in Choice D:

1. Modifier Error: The modifier with a five percent increase non-sensically modifies the preceding clause. Per the intended meaning, it should modify the preceding noun – profits.


Hope it helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one issue at a time, and narrow it down to the right answer! To begin, here is the original question, with any major differences between the options highlighted in orange:

The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell over the last two years.

(A) which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell
(B) which had increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it had fallen
(C) which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling
(D) with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after falling
(E) with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after having fallen

After a quick glance over the options, there are a few key differences we can focus on:

1. which vs. with (modifiers)
2. increased / had increased / have increased (verb tense/subject-verb agreement)
3. it fell / it had fallen / falling / having fallen (verb tense/pronouns)

Since we're dealing with a modifier here, let's start with #1 on our list. This will determine if we should start the modifier with "which" or "with." Here is how each type of modifier works:

,which = noun modifier (the modifier must refer back to the noun right before the comma)
,with = adverbial modifier (the modifier must refer back to the clause before the comma)

Let's take a look at each option and determine if we need to use "which" or "with" here:

(A) The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell
(B) The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which had increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it had fallen
(C) The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling
(D) The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after falling
(E) The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, with a five percent increase during the first three months of this year after having fallen

After looking more carefully, it makes more sense to use the noun modifier beginning with "which" because it clearly refers back to what it's modifying: profits. Using the word "with" here changes the meaning! It says that the results increased five percent, not the profits! Therefore, we can eliminate options D & E because they use an adverbial modifier that isn't clear or logical to use here.

Now that we have 3 options left, let's move on to #3 on our list: whether or not to use the pronoun "it." The first thing we need to ask ourselves when it comes to pronouns is "do they agree in number?" In this case, the pronoun "it" is referring back to the word "profits." So - do they agree in number? NO! The word "profits" is plural, and the pronoun "it" is singular.

(A) which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell
(B) which had increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it had fallen
(C) which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling

We can eliminate options A & B because they have a pronoun-antecedent agreement problem. This leaves us with C as our correct option!


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.

Dear AnthonyRitz GMATGuruNY AjiteshArun IanStewart EducationAisle MartyTargetTestPrep DmitryFarber GMATRockstar GMATNinja VeritasPrepHailey

What is the correct tense for the part "after falling over the last two years"?

The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after falling over the last two years.


I think the below insertion is grammatically correct.

The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after they (profits) FELL over the last two years.

However, "OVER the LAST two years" indicates that the tense should be present perfect instead of simple past?

The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after they (profits) HAVE FALLEN over the last two years.

But then If that is the case, shouldn't the OA be "after HAVING falling over the last two years"? (I'm not questioning OA, but I want to know why it is correct)
The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which have increased five percent during the first three months of this year after HAVING FALLEN over the last two years.

Note that the fall is now completed -- the profits "have increased during the first three months of this year." So "have fallen" cannot be correct; the fall is not continuing in the present.

Either of your other options should be fine. "fell" is accurate use of the simple past tense. And if you really do want the participle to explicitly convey that it happened in the past, the "having fallen" form would be a correct way to do so. "falling" was also fine; it expressed no tense, but the word "after" conveyed the timeline perfectly clearly.

Request Expert Reply:
Hi Honorable Experts,
MartyTargetTestPrep, GMATNinja, GMATGuruNY, AjiteshArun, VeritasPrepHailey, BrightOutlookJenn,
I'm just going to be crazy with the use of 'non-essential' modifier, 'which clause'! Can you help me, please?
cost-cutting measures are evident because of profit's fluctuation, right? The 'which' clause is in non-essential modifier here in this case. If we don't consider the fluctuation of the profits as 'essential' then how do we be sure that cost-cutting measures are evident? Shouldn't the 'which' clause be kept as 'essential modifier' like 'that' clause?
Thanks__

The real question here is about what, exactly, it means for a modifier to be "necessary" (or "essential").

Simply adding information to a sentence does not render a modifier necessary. Pretty much every modifier does that. Even if that information is really nice to know, this point alone is not enough.

The question of necessity is always "can you live without it?" So the real test is this: Remove the modifier. Does the sentence that remains still make sense? Is the material that remains conveying basically the same information as it (the remaining material only) was when the modifier was present? If so, then the modifier was unnecessary. From the UT Dallas Writing Center:



Without the relative clause, our sentence is



This is perfectly clear and logical. It means the same thing whether or not I tell you how the measures affected the company's profits. The profits in question are still the same profits with or without the modifier, and it is perfectly clear what profits I'm talking about (the possessive "its" seals the deal). Almost any modifier would just be bonus information. So this is basically the paradigm case in which your modifier would be unnecessary. It would be wrong to use a necessary "that" relative clause here.

egmat - The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which increased five percent during the first three months of this year after it fell over the last two years.

If we keep the pronoun error aside, is the tense in this sentence correct?
(I missed identifying the pronoun error in this and was confused between A and C)

mikemcgarry sir, AndrewN

Could you please review/validate my understanding,

1) 'After' is a preposition, so its object can either be a noun or an entity behaving as a noun (gerund or Noun clause);
2) Only a dependent clause can act as a noun clause

so 'After' followed by independent clause 'it fell...' in option-A and 'it had fallen...' in option-B is incorrect

Or in such a structure, conjunction is implied.

Regards
Rohit

Hello again, Rohit. You are correct that after can act as either a preposition or a conjunction. Since an independent clause follows the word in answer choices (A) and (B), we can identify after in those options as a conjunction. For reference, see the entry for after in the Cambridge Dictionary, in particular the sample sentences illustrating such usage:


I hope that helps clarify the matter.

- Andrew

Thanks AndrewN for your immediate response, And yes it has clarified the matter

Regards
Rohit

Hi Mike, I could not understand why (D) and (E) arent similar to the "subject+verb+object, with" case, and since 'with' modifies either the verb or the obect in the subject+verb+object case , why doesnt 'with' modify the object(profits) here?
It would be really helpful if someone could help with this query. Thanks in advance