European leaders, who met until the early hours of Friday, agreed for

Here is the official explanation for this question:

Understand the Meaning of the Original Sentence

The sentence states the following:
• European leaders met until Friday morning
• They agreed to sign a treaty – an intergovernmental treaty.
• They agreed to sign this treaty with the head of the World Bank.
• This treaty would require the leaders to enforce stricter fiscal and financial discipline in their future budgets.

Find the Errors in the Original Sentence

• European leaders,
o who met until the early hours of Friday,
• agreed for signing, with the head of the World Bank, an intergovernmental treaty
• that would require it to enforce stricter fiscal and financial discipline in their future budgets.

The sentence has been simplified into its clauses as shown above. All subject verb pairs are accounted for. The pronoun “it” in underlined portion of the sentence logically refers to “European leaders” but does not agree in number with its antecedent. Thus, this sentence has pronoun-antecedent number agreement error. Notice that the other pronoun “their” in non-underlined portion also logically refers to “European leaders”. Context of the sentence requires both these pronouns to refer to the “leaders”. Furthermore, the expression “for signing” is not appropriate. The sentence expresses an intention here – leaders agreed to do something. Thus, the more appropriate expression is “to sign”.

Review Answer choices to do POE

Choice B – Even though this choice is grammatically correct, it is not the correct answer since it distorts the meaning of the original sentence. The sentence per choice B implies that the head of the World Bank would require the leaders to enforce stricter rules. Even though this is logical, it is not what the original sentence states. Per the original sentence, it is the treaty that will enforce these regulations.

Choice C – This choice is grammatically correct but it no longer communicates the logical intended meaning of the sentence. By changing the “that modifier” into a “verb-ing modifier”, this sentence now implies that merely by agreeing to sign this treaty would result in enforcement of stricter controls and regulations. This is clearly not the logical sense.

Choice D – Correct choice.

Choice E – This choice repeats the “for signing” error as in choice A. Furthermore, the structure of this choice is such that now it is no longer clear what would require the leaders to enforce stricter controls. – the World Bank or the treaty. Notice carefully the change in placement of the modifiers in this choice.

TAKE AWAYS

1. Understand the intended meaning of the sentence well before you review the answer choices. If you do not do so, you may mark the seemingly correct choice as the correct answer when this choice in fact changes the meaning of the sentence.
2. Notice carefully any change in the modifier structure itself. The changed modifier may change the meaning of the sentence while still being grammatically correct and/or logically sound.
3. Use “to verb” to present intention.

Note: The attachment at https://gmatclub.com/forum/5-strategies-that-gmat-uses-to-distort-meaning-124296.html contains the document with Strategies for Meaning Change and the questions with detailed solutions. Note that this is a "living" document. We add the strategies, questions, and explanations in this document as we add them on the forum. So be sure to download the latest version!
_________________

IMO C should be the answer. Here is my reasoning:

"Agreed for" is unidiomatic. "Agreed to" is the proper idiom. That leaves us with options B, C & D. (A & E are out).
B - "who" is typically used for people. In option B, it applies to bank. Even though we mention the head of the world bank (who would be an individual), the "who" directly modifies only the "bank", not the "head of the world bank". That is why B is wrong.

D - The prepositional phrase set off by commas is not optional. If we put it in commas as done in option D, then it becomes optional. For example, the "who met until...Friday" part has been put off in commas. In this case, we do not necessarily require this piece of information to make logical sense of the sentence. The sentence would still stand despite the removal of the aforementioned phrase. However, the "with the head of the world bank" phrase is not optional. This part is very much required in the sentence. Who did the leaders sign the treaty with? This is the question that is answered by the phrase above. Hence, it cannot be put off by commas as done in option D.

In C, the leaders agreed to sign a treaty with the head of the world bank. This treaty required the leaders to enforce stricter fiscal and financial discipline in their future budgets. Hence, "requiring them" is appropriate because the "requiring" modifies treaty and "them" refers to "leaders".
This is how I understood and solved the problem. I may, however, be mistaken. Please post the OA with explanation. TIA.

daagh chetan2u egmat

In the right choice , D, i didn't get the placement of modifier " with the head of the world bank"
it seems to be a prepositional modifier modifying leaders who signed treaty with the head but is the placement of this modifier right?
_________________

Sananoor
There is some flexibility in placing a prepositional adverbial modifier as long as it modifies the previous clause, essentially the previous clause's subject and its action and not simply the subject alone as you seem to look at it.

Do u think the given version is a misplaced modifier and if so, could you pl give your improved version?
_________________

Thanku daagh for ur prompt reply. ur explanation helps, as always.

Now about improved version, what if we remove the commas and make this prepositional adverbial modifier an essential modifier. will it be right?
_________________

The problem is the word 'intergovernmental'. You see that the World Bank is no government and therefore it cannot be part of an intergovernmental treaty WB can only guide the formation of such a treaty.
_________________

Hi egmat

For option C, can you please clarify how was it inferred that merely by agreeing would result in enforcement of controls?





European leaders, who met until the early hours of Friday, agreed to sign an intergovernmental treaty with the head of the world bank, requiring them to enforce stricter fiscal and financial discipline in their future budgets.

To enforce clearly indicates that this event is yet to be initiated.