The board of directors have instructed the managers to refrain from sa

Question

The board of directors have instructed the managers to refrain from sacking employees who did not participate in  or know about the scam or have  any vested interest.

A. or know about the scam or have
B. or know about the scam and had
C. and know about the scam or had
D. or know about the scam or had
E. or know about the scam and have

Fresh Verbal Question From GMAT Club Tests'. Written by  sayantanc2k

V35-10

PyjamaScientist · Answer

( A) ) in my opinion.

It is a case of "  polysyndeton  ", I think. And this would be the first time I am seeing a question in the GMAT  world  using this  not-so-common  yet the  correct   usage of repeating conjunctions .
Eg.  “I wore a sweater,  and   a hat,  and   a scarf,  and   a pair of boots,  and  mittens”.  or   GMATNinja  is brave  and   smart  and   cunning .

In this question: The board of directors have instructed the managers to refrain from sacking employees who  did not participate in    or    know about the scam    or    have any vested interest .

Bonus example: 
" And   every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man,  and   cattle,  and   the creeping things,  and   the fowl of the heaven;  and  they were destroyed from the earth:  and   Noah only remained alive,  and   they that were with him in the ark." ( Genesis 7:22–24 )

gloomybison · Answer

This is an interesting question indeed, and ı am a little bit unsure about my logic
So first of all, if a scam took place in a company, company would decide to take actions against the culprits or the collaborators. So if an employee did not participate in the scam, did not know the scam or did not have any vested interest from the scam than it wouldn't make sense for the company to lay him/her off, because he/she is innocent....

A. or know about the scam or have
In a parallel list we mostly expect to have X, Y, a Coordinating conjunction Z
so scattering "or" in the sentence like this seems a little bit strange

B. or know about the scam and had
carrying over employees  who did not  had...is grammatically wrong 
if you just carry "employees  who " had vested interest than it would be suspicious meaning-wise. Because if employees had vested interest from this scam than it is serious crime...

C. and know about the scam or had
Again if we carry over "employees who did not" it gives us "who did not had", which is fatally wrong
if you just carry employees " who " than it would be suspicious meaning-wise. Because this will give us an illogical meaning; "employees who know about the scam or had vested interest". A company will surely take action against those who knew or had any interest from a scam

D. or know about the scam or had
Same issue in A. Also "who didn't had" is wrong. Even if you carry over "who" it will still give you a warped suspicious meaning

E. or know about the scam and have
carrying over "employees who did not"  participate  in or  know  about the scam and  have  any vested interest.

This a nested parallelism example;
First Tier; who did not "participate/know and have any vested..."
Second Tier; who did not "participate or know"

sayantanc2k · Answer

I am not sure what "polysyndeton" exactly means, but by seeing your examples, I presume, you mean inserting conjunctions which are not necessary, but still used for stylistic purposes. In that case, I would ask you to take a closer look at the question - are there really three parallel items joined by two conjunctions (the first conjunction being redundant) or is there some other logical need for using two conjunctions? What happens if you replace the first conjunction by a comma?

Moroever be rest assured that use of multiple conjunctions (not as so-called "polysyndeton", but for some specific logical requirement) has been tested in GMAT and available in OG. I shall post the link to the OG question after the OA and OE for this question is published.

sayantanc2k · Answer

Your logic is on the right track, but be very cautious about which conjunction to use while negating. You have used the right logic and combination in your own analysis (highlighted in blue font above). Moreover please take a look at my post above - what happens if you replace the first conjunction by a comma? Can there be some nesting? Start with the blue font part in your analysis, remove the repeated parts by nesting (twice) and see where you arrive.

gloomybison · Answer

sayantanc2k 
I believe that ı see what you mean,
e.g. in Choice D embedding "and" in the options gives the warped impression that in order for the company not to lay someone off he/she should not "know about the scam" and "have vested" interest at the same time whereas what the company needs is at least such 1 element not both or three at the same time.

from that stand point A can be correct answer but what slightly irritated me in A is that do we really need to repeat "or" each time? Isn't it better if just say X, Y ,or Z instead of X, or Y, or Z?

Should we weigh A and D from "a logical stand point" A surely wins but as ı said above A looked too strange TBH....

Would love to hear more on this from you

sayantanc2k · Answer

Great! The first part is absolutely to the point.

Now for the second part, is "or" required between X and Y or a comma will suffice? To answer this question, please check how many items are common for the part "the scam" - 2 (X,Y) or 3 (X,Y,Z)? In other words which of the following structures do you think is correct?

Structure 1: .......who did not

Structure 2: .......who did not

Do you see now whether the first "or" is required or not? Otherwise, please let me know: you may either wait for the solution to be published on 1st April, or you may ask me to send you the solution by PM.

PyjamaScientist  
Do you see now why this is not a "polysyndeton"?

gloomybison · Answer

sayantanc2k

I see now, and I think first "or" is necessary, because the scam is actually setting the boundary for the first nested parallel structure. In order for the first embedded parallel structure to be parallel, we need a coordinating conjunction. Normally in most question we are used to carry over from left to right but here we are doing the vice versa!

Thank you for your help!

PyjamaScientist · Answer

sayantanc2k  Hey, you are right. Upon closer inspection, I do see the logic behind using "multiple conjunctions". Yes, the three entities are not parallel and indeed require conjunction "OR". I eliminated the other four options as they distorted the "intended meaning" and took A for a "polysyndeton" (  I promise not to use this term ever again  ).

An example of this SC question's structure would be-
Sayan's SC questions are  not   dull   or   made without any meaning   or   non-Gmat like . The three entities are  noun ,  participle phrase  and then again a  noun . But, they hold together with 'or' conjunction.

But wouldn't it be better, if the sentence went like this- Sayan's SC questions are  neither   dull   nor   made without any meaning   nor   non-Gmat like . Because that's the structure normally used to convey such meaning.

Creating a simpler sentence to understand the nuance helps in making proper understanding, so if you feel there's a flaw above, do let me know.

Pankaj0901 · Answer

IMO Answer D

Two things:

1. X  or/and  Y  or/and  Z

X  or/and  Y 
-> Logically, employees who did not participate OR know about the scam -> It includes three scenarios: 
a. employees did not participate, BUT know about the scam (INCLUDED)
b. employees did not participate, AND don't know about the scam (INCLUDED) 
c. employees participated, BUT didn't know about the scam (NOT INCLUDED)
d. employees participated, AND know about the scam (INCLUDED) 
Since, the scenarios a and d are not covered in case of "AND", but are covered (logically make sense) in case of "OR", IMO "OR" is correct.

Now, Y  or/and  Z 
Similarly, the same conditions, wherein the X/Y  AND/OR  Z can be independentally applicable. Hence, "OR".

=> B, C & E: OUT

2. Between "have" or "had" in option A and D: (I am not really confident about this one)
Since, the board of directors "have" instructed for employees who DID NOT participate, the "HAD" any vested interest makes sense. Since the scam has happened already, how will the managers know if employees HAD any vested interested? May be there are employees who didn't have vested interested before the scam (and are innocent wrt scam), but they have vested interest now. Hence, logically, "HAD" makes sense, but practically not sure how managers can find employees who HAD vested interest. (confused)
But, I will go with D.

sayantanc2k · Answer

Yes, I agree with you. When three parallel items are joined, using "neither.. not.. nor" is better than using "not .. or .. or". Just a small correction: In the sentence "The flower is beautiful", "beautiful" is an adjective. Thus, in your sentence "dull" and "non-GMATlike" are also adjectives, not nouns - In fact, nouns cannot be used in parallel with participle phrases, because participle phrases act as adjectives. One last thing: I was happy to learn the new term "polysyndeton".

Please feel free to share new information - the purpose of GMATclub and other such platforms is to help each other strengthen knowledge.

sayantanc2k · Answer

Just to clarify that nesting from the right is not very uncommon, please consider the following simple example:

I like Cricket.
I watch Cricket.
I learn Tennis.

I like and watch cricket and learn Tennis.

Conceptually, the above example is identical to the following, in which nesting is done from the left.

Sachin likes Cricket.
Sachin watches Cricket.
Saurav learns Cricket.

Sachine likes and watches and Saurav learns Cricket.

Vatsal7794 · Answer

sayantanc2k

Please post the solution. I marked E as the answer

Bunuel · Answer

GMAT Club Tests' Official Explanation

To add two items in a negative statement, “or” instead of “and” is used.
NOT (A and B) = NOT A or NOT B

Here the basic structure is 
…employees who did not

X = participate in the scam
Y = know about the scam
Z = have vested interest

X and Y has to be further nested inside the parenthesis (X or Y) because the part “the scam” bears on both. The part Z is out of the first bracket because the part “the scam” does not bear on Z, but it is still inside the square bracket   because the part “did not” bears on Z (along with X and Y).

A. Correct.  “Or” is correctly used to join verbs in a negative statement.

B. “Did not had” is grammatically wrong - the correct usage is “did not have”. 
Alternatively if it is considered that “had” has no bearing on “did not” and used as an independent verb in the simple past, then the meaning is reversed.
This statement implies that people   AND   would not be sacked. The intended meaning those who did not have vested interest would not be sacked.

Moreover “And” is wrongly used instead of “or”.

C. “Did not had” is grammatically wrong - the correct usage is “did not have”.
Alternatively if it is considered that “had” has no bearing on “did not” and used as an independent verb in the simple past, then the meaning is reversed.
This statement implies that people who   OR   would not be sacked. The intended meaning those who did not have vested interest would not be sacked.

Moreover “And” is wrongly used instead of “or” between “participate” and “know”.

D. “Did not had” is grammatically wrong - the correct usage is “did not have”.
Alternatively if it is considered that “had” has no bearing on “did not” and used as an independent verb in the simple past, then the meaning is reversed.
This statement implies that people who   OR   would not be sacked. The intended meaning those who did not have vested interest would not be sacked.

E. “And” is wrongly used instead of “or”.
This statement implies that people who did not participate or know AND did not have vested interest would not be sacked. Thus both the criteria separated by “and” must be satisfied in order not to get sacked - the meaning is hence distorted.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

The board of directors have instructed the managers to refrain from sa

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

The board of directors have instructed the managers to refrain from sa

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards