As bank staff streamed into work the next morning

Question

Project SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC1) 
 For SC butler Questions  Click Here

As bank staff streamed into work the next morning,  the presence of the SEC officials that wore their characteristic black suits were an ominous sign that  the staff’s employer was in trouble.

A) the presence of the SEC officials that wore their characteristic black suits were an ominous sign that

B) the presence of the SEC officials wearing their characteristic black suits was an ominous sign that

C) the presence of the SEC officials that wore their characteristically black suits was an ominous sign that

D) the presence of the SEC officials who wore their characteristic black suits was an ominous sign of

E) the presence of the SEC officials who wore their characteristically black suits was an ominous sign of

generis · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Project SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC1) 
 For SC butler Questions  Click Here

THE PROMPT

THE OPTIONS  
 
• Subject/verb agreement
→ The singular subject  presence  does not agree with the plural verb  were .

• who / that
→ The phrase should be "officials  who  wore."
→ to describe human beings, use  who. 
To describe anything non-human, use  that .

GMAC is quite strict about this distinction.
Correct:  The student who displayed graciousness left a memorable impression. 
Correct:  The cluster bombs that invaders use on civilian targets are barbaric.

Occasionally you will see a group constituted of people—such as a battalion, a government, or a committee—followed by  that. 
Such usage is allowed. You will not see a question in such a case in which  who  is pitted against  that .
Example, allowed:  The Ukrainian regiments that held off the Russian invaders were outgunned and outmanned but fought more cleverly and more tenaciously.  
Eliminate A

• I do not see any errors

• The singular subject  presence  agrees with the singular verb  was

• Who/that is not an issue, although the perfectly acceptable modifier "wearing" comes from a "reduced relative clause."
Original relative clause: . . . SEC officials who were wearing their . . .
To reduce this clause, remove the relative pronoun ( who ); remove the  to be  verb ( were ); and leave  wearing.

•  Characteristic  is an adjective that describes a noun.
You will often see it paired with a possessive term such as  their, her,  etc.
Wearing black suits is characteristic of SEC officials.
The black suits are not characteristically doing anything.

Characteristically  is an adverb that describes a verb; frequently that verb is a linking verb.
Correct:  Conspiracy theorists are characteristically bitter and often espouse nihilistic ideologies. 
Correct:  Journalists characteristically open their stories with 25 to 30 words and often do so in one sentence; that sentence is called a "lead."

I recall only a couple of official questions in which this split has shown up, and I believe that the split was not decisive. (The answer choices were eliminated on the basis of other errors.)

Still, you never know what you will see, so if you can, just notice that the adverb  characteristically  has the common suffix  -ly  whereas the adjective  characteristic  does not. 
And choose the safe route.
The adverb modifies a verb. The adjective modifies a noun.

I advise against doing a Google search for "characteristically black."
Getting hits on Google is not typically great support for what is considered correct on the GMAT.
In similar fashion, do not take the word of a dictionary or its collocation notes as gospel.
KEEP

• who / that
→ The phrase should be "officials  who  wore."
→ to describe human beings, use  who. 
To describe anything non-human, use  that .
Same error as that in option A.

•  characteristically  is an adverb that should modify a verb, but in its placement in this sentence,  characteristically  incorrectly modifies the noun  black suits 
ELIMINATE C

• Nonsensical
The word "of" renders the whole sentence nonsensical.
Incorrect and nonsensical:  The presence of SEC officials . . . was an ominous sign  of the staff's employer in trouble.  
ELIMINATE D

• Nonsensical: OF. 
Same error as that in option D.

•  Characteristically  should be  characteristic 
Same error as that in option C.
Eliminate E

The answer is B.

COMMENTS

I like the discussion on this thread.
And for the most part, these answers are excellent.

Keep up the good work.

PyjamaScientist · Answer

(B) . It took me 01:32.

(A) "that" can not refer to "officials". "who" should be used instead. Incorrect.

(B)  " wearing their characteristic black suits " is a verb-ing phrase modifying the noun it touches, i.e, " officials ". "an ominous sign  that " is correct as  that   is a connector here joining two clauses. Eg,  He came into the room and said that he was hungry.

(C) Again "that" can not refer to "officials". Incorrect.

(D) "an ominous sign  of " is incorrect as " of " is a preposition that should logically be followed by a noun but instead it is followed by a clause. This is incorrect.

(E) "characteristically" is an adverb and should modify a verb instead it is modifying a noun. Incorrect.

kungfury42 · Answer

I think the answer should be B.

(A) presence.. were an ominous sign is incorrect, it should be was instead of were

(B) No errors!

(CE) Characteristically black suits is incorrect. The correct version is characteristic black suits.

(DE) Ominous sign of is incorrect.

Posted from my mobile device

winterschool · Answer

As bank staff streamed into work the next morning, the presence of the SEC officials that wore their characteristic black suits were an ominous sign that the staff’s employer was in trouble.

A) the presence of the SEC officials that wore their characteristic black suits  were  an ominous sign that  Incorrect

the presence is singular, so singular verb needed

B)  the presence of the SEC officials wearing their characteristic black suits was an ominous sign that   Correct

C) the presence of the SEC officials  that wore their characteristically black  suits was an ominous sign that  Incorrect

that should be who, also characteristically uses wrong that changes meaning
 
D) the presence of the SEC officials who wore their characteristic black suits was an ominous  sign of   Incorrect

IC without any conjunction or semicolon

E) the presence of the SEC officials who wore their  characteristically black suits was an ominous sign of   Incorrect

characteristically uses wrong, also IC issue

zhanbo · Answer

My answer is  (B) . It took me 53 seconds.

(A) "the SEC officials that" should be "the SEC officials who". 
In British English, "the SEC officials that" is ok. In American English, use "who" to refer to humans and "which" non-humans. Note that "whose" works for both humans and non-humans. 
Besides, "were an ominous sign" should be "was an ominous sign" because the subject is "the presence".

(B) No obvious error. Keep for now.

(C) "the SEC officials that" should be "the SEC officials who".

(DE) "an sign of the staff’s employer was in trouble" is totally wrong. 
Consider removing the verb "was": "an sign of the staff’s employer's trouble"

Note there is another split:
"their characteristic black suits" VS "their characteristically black suits"
I think either is okay even though their meanings are not exactly the same. What do you say?

PyjamaScientist · Answer

Adverbs can not modify nouns. So, the adverb "characteristically" can not modify "black suits". But, the adjective "characteristic" on the other hand can.

zhanbo · Answer

Yet ”characteristically“ can modify an adjective such as "black"...
Its meaning will be different from "characteristic black", but the meaning is not unfathomable.

PyjamaScientist · Answer

Intensifiers  (  jargon  for  adverbs modifying adjectives  )  usually clarify the degree or intensity of the adjective. 
Example: 
 That is an  unusually   tall  tree. ( Unusually   tells  how   tall   the tree is.) If we have to use an adverb to modify a colour it should clarify the degree or intensity of that colour. 
Example:
 She wore a  blazingly red  lipstick for her date. ( blazingly   tells the  intensity  of the colour  red  ). 
In the sentence at hand though, " characteristically " in " characteristically   black suit" does nothing towards providing the  intensity   or the  degree   of the adjective "black", so does the modification really make the cut here? I am not totally convinced  how .

zhanbo · Answer

I am not sure myself whether "characteristically black" is correct, or the use of such necessarily eliminates the option. It might be a false split. Frankly, I did not even notice the split when I first answered the question.

If we google ”characteristically black", we see many hits. A couple of examples:
(1) The downy chicks are characteristically black in color, with rust on the head and neck, and the bill is red with a black tip. // "in color" is redundant though. 
(2) Dressed casually in her characteristically black ensemble, her long, auburn hair pulled back in a ponytail, Darrah Carr is shuffling through ...

debjit1990 · Answer

Ans:B
A) the presence of the SEC officials that wore their characteristic black suits were an ominous sign that..s-v agreement wrong

B) the presence of the SEC officials wearing their characteristic black suits was an ominous sign that..correct

C) the presence of the SEC officials that wore their characteristically black suits was an ominous sign that...that cannot refer to officials

D) the presence of the SEC officials who wore their characteristic black suits was an ominous sign of..an ominous sign of is wrong

E) the presence of the SEC officials who wore their characteristically black suits was an ominous sign of ...an ominous sign of is wrong

generis · Answer

The official explanation is  here .

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.

As bank staff streamed into work the next morning

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

As bank staff streamed into work the next morning

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