Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow....

[gkumar]

I was stumped by this one from GMAT Prep. Can someone explain (not just give answer)?

Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled automobile companies' common stocks to new highs, several industry analysts expect automakers, in order to conserve cash, to set cash more conservatively than they were.

A) to set dividends more conservatively than they were
B) to set dividends more conservatively than they have been
C) to be more conservative than they have been in setting dividends
D) that they will be more conservative than they were in setting dividends
E) that they will be more conservative than they have been to set dividends

OA: I chose B, but the OA is C

==========
My logic was as follows. Please explain my errors:
A) to set dividends more conservatively than they were
set is the verb so "to have" is the verb needed to correspond to the elliptical phrase. This effectively rules out D.
B) to set dividends more conservatively than they have been
I chose this as this choice was more than than C was
C) to be more conservative than they have been in setting dividends
"Setting dividends" is not active and is passive.
D) that they will be more conservative than they were in setting dividends
Same verb error from A is repeated. And I think the idiom is "expect to <verb>" and not "expect that"?
E) that they will be more conservative than they have been to set dividends
Same idiom error from D about "expect" is repeated

What is the OE?

[kylo]

here the intended meaning of the sentence is to indicate that the automakers will be conservative in setting the dividends which will be lower than expected.

A n B - incorrectly indicate that the dividends are conservative.
D n E - .....automakers that ........ - awkward.

hence IMO C.


Thanks!

[gkumar]

I'm confused on the usage of conservative.

Is the setting of dividends conservative or are the automakers conservative in setting? If the answer is the latter, then more conservatively should not be used. But how do you know for sure?

[bear&bull]

B) to set dividends more conservatively than they have been

to set is the infinitive verb . there is no auxiliary verb.hence have been cannot be used

Moreover the following idioms are correct

expect that x would be Y
expect X to be Y

X is expected to y

[RonPurewal]

B) to set dividends more conservatively than they have been

to set is the infinitive verb . there is no auxiliary verb.hence have been cannot be used

this is the right idea, yes.

let me have a go at it, in simpler language:
whenever you use a parallel structure with omitted/elided words, the EXACT omitted word(s) MUST be present, IN PARALLEL STRUCTURE, elsewhere in the sentence. this means in exactly the same form - no alterations, no tense changes, no nothing.

this kills choice (b). that choice ends with "...than they have been", which omits a participle: in other words, it's actually "...than they have been ______", where the ______ is clearly seen to be setting (dividends).
since the EXACT WORD setting doesn't appear anywhere else in this sentence, the sentence is incorrect.

by contrast, choice (c) is a-ok on this point. this choice also contains "...than they have been (__________)", where the parallel concept, "(more) conservative", actually appears elsewhere in the sentence.

[cesar.rodriguez.blanco]

One question: In the answer choice C, we have
C. to be more conservative than they have been in setting dividends.

that is, "TO BE" and "HAVE BEEN", so we have the auxiliary have, but no auxiliary in the first term. How can it be correct?

Please, let me know if I am misguided: when we have a comparison (THAN), we must have completely parallel forms, and here I think that it is not the case.

[RonPurewal]

Please, let me know if I am misguided: when we have a comparison (THAN), we must have completely parallel forms, and here I think that it is not the case.

you have to have parallelism insofar as parallelism is possible.

here, though, you're comparing an infinitive (as required by english idiom, following "expect") to a present perfect (as required by english diction to describe a trend that continues up to the present date).
it's not possible to substitute an infinitive for the second part, or a present perfect for the first part, without destroying the meaning or the idiomatic correctness of the sentence.

so, basically, the parallelism is as good as it possibly can be.

--

example:

my wife and i argue just as often and about the same topics as the couple next door.

this is not "textbook perfect parallelism" - the first part is an adverb phrase, and the second is a prepositional phrase - but you can't possibly make it any better.
i.e., there's no prepositional phrase that really means the same thing as "just as often", so you can't adjust the first half to the second one. but there's also no adverb that means "about the same things", so you can't make the second half any more parallel, either.
therefore, this isn't perfect parallelism, but it's optimal parallelism.

hope that helps.

[gkumar]

Ron, thanks for a great explanation.

Would this be correct also if the below was given?
"to set dividends more conservatively than they DID"

[karthik.eleven]

B) to set dividends more conservatively than they have been

to set is the infinitive verb . there is no auxiliary verb.hence have been cannot be used

Moreover the following idioms are correct

expect that x would be Y
expect X to be Y

X is expected to y

I am not sure if the expression "expect that x would be Y" is acceptable. As a matter of fact there is a problem set -- in the 2007 edition of the book -- that validates my belief.

Experts: What do you think???

[RonPurewal]

Ron, thanks for a great explanation.

Would this be correct also if the below was given?
"to set dividends more conservatively than they DID"

i think that would be ok, but i'd still look for official validation before giving you the 100% thumbs-up.

[cyber_office]

Can the "they" in C be viewed as ambigious?

Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled automobile companies' common stocks to new highs, several industry analysts expect automakers, in order to conserve cash, to set dividens more conservatively than they were.


C) to be more conservative than they have been in setting dividends

Each time I re-read the sentence, I wonder whether "they" could refer to the analysts.

For example, in C: Several industry analysts expect automakers, .........................., to be more conservative than they (the analysts) have been in setting divdends.

Or does "they" refer clearly to automakers because it is closer to automakers?

Thanks.

[newangel55]

Can the "they" in C be viewed as ambigious?

Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled automobile companies' common stocks to new highs, several industry analysts expect automakers, in order to conserve cash, to set dividens more conservatively than they were.


C) to be more conservative than they have been in setting dividends

Each time I re-read the sentence, I wonder whether "they" could refer to the analysts.

For example, in C: Several industry analysts expect automakers, .........................., to be more conservative than they (the analysts) have been in setting divdends.

Or does "they" refer clearly to automakers because it is closer to automakers?

Thanks.

In option B, it is not clear whether "they" is reffering to dividends or automakers...Somehow it sounds awkward.

"..... several industry analysts expect automakers, in order to conserve cash, to set dividends more conservatively than they have been "



Whereas, in option C, "they" perfectly refers to the automakers and clearly states that
automakers will be more conservative(than before) in setting dividends.

"..... several industry analysts expect automakers, in order to conserve cash, to be more conservative than they have been in setting divdends.

[cyber_office]

Thanks, but I still don't get it. I don't understand how you state that "" "they" perfectly refers to the automakers and clearly states that automakers will be more conservative(than before) in setting dividends""

I'm looking more for an explanation than anything else. Clearly, the answer C is correct, but I am not sure why "they" cannot refer to the analysts.

MGMAT SC Guide stresses Correctness, Conciseness, and Clarity. From a logical standpoint, I know analysts do not set dividends. However, it's clarity that I am struggling with.

Example - my original sentence:

"..... several industry analysts expect pharma companies, in order to project a better image, to be more conservative in projecting revenues than they have been."

Does "they" refer to pharma companies or analysts? And if "they" refers to "pharma companies," Why?

Cheers.

[pddtruong]

I'm not sure if the previous poster is 100% correct. Lets break it apart. The way I thought about it is this:

....several industry analysts expect automakers, in order to conserve cash, to set dividends more conservatively than they have been

Subject 1 = Analysts
Object 1= Automakers
Object 2= Dividends

Dividend is the object of Automakers, making automakers the "subject" of the phrase "to set dividends more conservatively than they have been." "They" is the subject here thus it must refers to a subject(pronoun can take the form of a subject or object but must agree with whatever it is in place for. If the pronoun acts as an object, it must refers to the object of previous phrase/clause). Automakers qualifies. To me, dividend is definitely not dividends. No confusion here.

[RonPurewal]

Thanks, but I still don't get it. I don't understand how you state that "" "they" perfectly refers to the automakers and clearly states that automakers will be more conservative(than before) in setting dividends""

I'm looking more for an explanation than anything else. Clearly, the answer C is correct, but I am not sure why "they" cannot refer to the analysts.

MGMAT SC Guide stresses Correctness, Conciseness, and Clarity. From a logical standpoint, I know analysts do not set dividends. However, it's clarity that I am struggling with.

Example - my original sentence:

"..... several industry analysts expect pharma companies, in order to project a better image, to be more conservative in projecting revenues than they have been."

Does "they" refer to pharma companies or analysts? And if "they" refers to "pharma companies," Why?

Cheers.

heh. yeah, i'm with you on this one. but remember:
PRONOUN AMBIGUITY IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RULE.

there are lots and lots and lots of other instances in which technically ambiguous pronouns are tolerated in correct answers.

by contrast, the following two rules ARE absolute:

1 * pronouns must stand for nouns that are actually present (with the sole exception of it is ADJ that / it has been found that / it is said that / etc)

2 * pronouns must match the noun in terms of singular / plural (NO exceptions to this one!)