Hi abhishekmayank,

This is a pattern in English in which the subject is postposed while a part of the verb or verb phrase is moved to the front of the sentence.

1. Bringing the automobile company back from the verge of bankruptcy shortly after the Second World War was a special, governmentally sanctioned price increase allowed during a period of wage and price controls.

is meant to be read as

2. A special, governmentally sanctioned price increase allowed during a period of wage and price controls was bringing the automobile company back from the verge of bankruptcy shortly after the Second World War.

Hi AjiteshArun,

While the issue of "postposed" would be at play over here, we can't take away the fact that a verb's present participle plays the role of a gerund and we can use it at the beginning of the sentence in place of a subject. Just another example :

Maintaining calm and tranquility in the panic situation is the responsibility of every citizen.

Whether we can read the sentence like this in the "postposed" structure ? Perhaps not, as it doesn't make any sense

The responsibility of every citizen is maintaining calm and tranquility in the panic situation


So, it could be the case that D is dubious in the sense that :

1. It is correct when "Bringing" is interpreted as gerund
2. It is incorrect when thought as "postposed" structure

Can someone explain why the usage of the present perfect is wrong here? Aren't we talking about a period of time in which the company has been brought back?

You've asked some really good questions! For example, you've found an exception to the pattern in which we see a noun on the other side of the verb that works just as well as the subject. That is, X is Y and Y is X are not considered the same when Y is as good a subject as X is. The difference in this case is that using bringing as the subject leads to a meaning issue that cannot be overlooked.

1. Bringing the company back was a good move. ← "Bringing the company back" is the subject here, and it makes sense to say that it was "a good move" (bringing the company back = a good move).

2. Bringing the company back was a price increase. ← Forcing bringing to play the role of subject here will lead to a meaning issue (bringing the company back = a price increase).

English is full of patterns like this one. The main takeaway here is that the GMAT sometimes uses such unexpected structures to throw test takers off.

Hi AjiteshArun VeritasKarishma Can you help me with one doubt related to usage of what or any wh-word.

1.) What is funny ? --> this is interrogative sentence .
and according to AjiteshArun What brought the automobile company back from the verge of bankruptcy shortly after the Second World War was a special , the bolded part is a large subject . So how is it not interrogative (this is also wh- word + modal verb structure)and sentence 1 is .
I know this is a very basic question but this particular question type I get wrong in various OG questions .
Hope u understand my query .Thanks in advance.

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Concepts tested here: Pronouns + Verb Forms + Tenses + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• The simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.
• The present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present.

A: Correct. This answer choice correctly uses the simple past tense verb “brought” to refer to an action that concluded in the past. Further, Option A is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

B: Trap. This answer choice uses the needlessly wordy phrase “The thing that brought”, leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

C: This answer choice uses the needlessly wordy phrase “That which averted”, leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

D: This answer choice incorrectly uses the present participle ("verb+ing" – “Bringing” in this sentence) to refer to an event that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.

E: This answer choice incorrectly uses the present perfect tense verb phrase “has brought” to refer to an action that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past, and the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present.

Hence, A is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Since the company was saved, isn't the action still affecting present? So why is E wrong and A correct?

Is option A correct because option A is just more concise and clearer than option B?

Dear Experts,
(B) is just "wordy" or is literally wrong due to "thing".

A "thing" is a physical object.

In informal, spoken English, people also routinely use "thing" to refer to abstract entities without a physical/material existence, such as people's words ("I just said the first thing that came to mind"), as well as to actions ("The first thing that we did was...").
These usages, however, are incorrect in formal written English.

In any case, don't be afraid to use unnecessary wordiness as a criterion for elimination! If there are other choices that express the same idea(s) more concisely, you can eliminate the unnecessarily wordy choice(s) for that reason.

RonTargetTestPrep

Thank you your response
I have a question (just want make sure I understand correctly)
I heard that what = the thing(s) that as well. But what can refer to either abstract entities or physical existence, right?

what can refer to either abstract entities or physical existence, right?