Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action

[direstraits007]

but the pronouns in C are just terribly vague

bad question if I may say so

i agree.
'it' is ambiguous, because it could potentially refer either to 'course of action' (the intended antecedent) or to 'incipient trouble'. also note that grammatical parallelism doesn't help: both of those possible antecedents are objects of prepositions - neither is the subject of its own clause (which would thereby create parallelism with 'it', which is the subject of its clause).

e is the best choice here. i cringe a bit at the use of 'being' - my first thought is that we could make the sentence better by using a noun, such as 'commitment' - but then you'd need some sort of possessive pronoun to show that it's the executive who's committed. in any case, (e) is definitely the best of the options here, none of which is perfect by any stretch.

Ron,

In E, don't you think the usage "one that" is redundant...? I've seen this usage as a redundant usage in almost all the questions.

What is wrong with this [if we remove "one"]?: "Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear."

Thanks!

GeeMate.

[RonPurewal]

but the pronouns in C are just terribly vague

bad question if I may say so

i agree.
'it' is ambiguous, because it could potentially refer either to 'course of action' (the intended antecedent) or to 'incipient trouble'. also note that grammatical parallelism doesn't help: both of those possible antecedents are objects of prepositions - neither is the subject of its own clause (which would thereby create parallelism with 'it', which is the subject of its clause).

e is the best choice here. i cringe a bit at the use of 'being' - my first thought is that we could make the sentence better by using a noun, such as 'commitment' - but then you'd need some sort of possessive pronoun to show that it's the executive who's committed. in any case, (e) is definitely the best of the options here, none of which is perfect by any stretch.

Ron,

In E, don't you think the usage "one that" is redundant...? I've seen this usage as a redundant usage in almost all the questions.

What is wrong with this [if we remove "one"]?: "Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear."

Thanks!

GeeMate.

you have "a course of action, especially X"
therefore X must be something that's parallel to "a course of action"
i.e., it must be a NOUN/PRONOUN, and it must represent a course of action.

here, "one" stands for "a course of action", so that's good.

if you remove "one", that parallelism is destroyed and you are left with a sentence that doesn't make sense.

[direstraits007]

GeeMate.[/quote]

you have "a course of action, especially X"
therefore X must be something that's parallel to "a course of action"
i.e., it must be a NOUN/PRONOUN, and it must represent a course of action.

here, "one" stands for "a course of action", so that's good.

if you remove "one", that parallelism is destroyed and you are left with a sentence that doesn't make sense.[/quote]

Thanks Ron!

But in some questions wherein I found the "one that" usage redundant are using the same concept which this question used. I mean to say like the above sentence falls apart if we remove "one" from it then can you give me some simple example sentence wherein removing "one" will not affect the sentence.

Thanks!

GeeMate.

[RonPurewal]

Thanks Ron!

But in some questions wherein I found the "one that" usage redundant are using the same concept which this question used. I mean to say like the above sentence falls apart if we remove "one" from it then can you give me some simple example sentence wherein removing "one" will not affect the sentence.

Thanks!

GeeMate.

hmm?

whether you want "one" is going to depend on exactly what is being compared - i.e., on parallelism.

if you need "one" to maintain this parallelism, then you should include "one". if you don't need it, then don't use it.

--

i don't have any questions immediately available in which you can just remove the "one" and not worry about it.
in fact, it appears that you have some such questions; after all, you said:

But in some questions wherein I found the "one that" usage redundant

...so, apparently, you already have some such questions. do you? if so, i'd love to see which examples you're talking about.

[tankobe]

qestion(1)
"especially one that worked well in the past" in B
"especially one that has worked well in the past" in E

the time is in the past, so why has worked rather than worked?


qestion(2)

A.Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

* "heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action" is awkward and difficult to read. (you may have to be a native speaker to pick up on this, though)

Noun:"Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action"; the whole clause is: executive Heavy commited to a course of action.

Ron,you said the Noun phrase is awkward. but when we need to change a whole clause with Suject, Verb, and Object into a Noun phrase for the context, we only have several ways.
1# Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action
2# Heavy commitment, by an executive, to a course of action
3# Heavy commitment to a course of action by an executive
4# executive's Heavy commitment to a course of action

4# can be right in GMAT(for example, 'Stephen have researched a phenomenon that most scientists agree is caused by human beings' burning of fossil fuels'; if you need a real gmat question, see OG12 #118), and 3# can also be right in GMAT(Hmmm! actually can be seen everywhere); So i assume that Ron, you will not think them awkward.

with repect to 1# and 2#, i don't find any convinced examples for/against the legitimacy of them(except for one in OG 10 #188--'Household cleaning products may not be thought of, by consumers, ashazardous substances' in wrong choice E). it seems likely that as you said, they ARE awkward.
Acctully, when first facing the problem, i see the awkward contruct although i am not a native speaker, but not to the exent--"to pick up on this"as a wrong choice; i am not sure whether we can kill the choice whenever finding 1# and 2# contruction in it.
Ron, what is your opinion?(are 3# and 4# better than 1# and 2#?)

[duolaimi_007]

Thanks for discussion above. According to my observation in OG, I noticed that GMAT prefers pronoun being as close as possible to the noun. For choice C, logically speaking, the pronoun "it" here should refer to "a course of action" ( Grammar-wise, " a course of action is also the only singular form in this sentence). However, "it＂is too far away from the noun which "it" intended to modify. For this, I can easily rule out Choice C. Hope my humble opinion will lift a curtain of new perspective for you to interpret this question.

[duolaimi_007]

Thanks for discussion above. According to my observation in OG, I noticed that GMAT prefers pronoun being as close as possible to the noun. For choice C, logically speaking, the pronoun "it" here should refer to "a course of action" ( Grammar-wise, " a course of action is also the only singular form in this sentence). However, "it＂is too far away from the noun which "it" intended to modify. For this, I can easily rule out Choice C. Hope my humble opinion will lift a curtain of new perspective for you to interpret this question.

[RonPurewal]

Thanks for discussion above. According to my observation in OG, I noticed that GMAT prefers pronoun being as close as possible to the noun. For choice C, logically speaking, the pronoun "it" here should refer to "a course of action" ( Grammar-wise, " a course of action is also the only singular form in this sentence). However, "it＂is too far away from the noun which "it" intended to modify. For this, I can easily rule out Choice C. Hope my humble opinion will lift a curtain of new perspective for you to interpret this question.

i'm not quite sure what you mean here, but if you are implying that pronouns automatically stand for whichever noun is closest to them, that is very, very wrong.

if the pronoun has multiple possible antecedents, a much more important factor is whether the pronoun is parallel to the intended noun.
for instance, if a pronoun serves as the subject of its clause, and there are two possible antecedents -- one that is the subject of its own clause, and one that is not -- then the pronoun will generally be taken to stand for the former, even if the former is much farther away.

[aagar2003]

I read through all the posts and I am sorry to say because of multiple interpretations I am confused. I was going with C but somehow E seems to be answer.
I don't understand why is "it" so ambiguous in C. It can neither refer to the commitment nor signs of x and not even executive. It can only have one possible antecedent " a course of action".

Now comes E. How about tense
Being heavily committed
Especially one that has worked in the past - Isn't 'one' ambiguous here.
is likely to make an executive - Why would being heavily committed make. Wouldn't it be the commitment that should make it. is likely to make seems in future while being heavily committed seems sth that has been present continuous.

For me E is definitely an incorrect one but what to do OA id E.

[tim]

okay let's address your confusion first. if there are conflicting interpretations, you go with those our instructors have offered rather than anyone else. our instructors will always lead you to the right answer. now if two of our instructors have different interpretations, they will both lead to the same correct answer anyway so learn from both of them; you still won't be led toward the wrong answer even if our instructors give you two different perspectives on the correct answer..

as for C, TOTALLY wrong on your part. i'm as skeptical of pronoun "ambiguity" as anyone, in that i find students rely on it too much when there is really no ambiguity at all (jumping to the conclusion that something is an idiom is an equally prevalent problem). but there is no way i can accept that "action" clearly trumps "trouble" as an antecedent, so i'm going to say you are absolutely required either to accept a pronoun ambiguity here or consider "trouble" as the (illogical) antecedent. either way, C is gone..

[sudaif]

E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

shouldn't E have the noun "executives" after the comma?

[RonPurewal]

E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

shouldn't E have the noun "executives" after the comma?

1) which comma? i'm not really sure what you mean here.

2) don't forget that CORRECT ANSWERS ARE CORRECT.
therefore, the answer to your question is automatically "no, we don't need to have that noun there."
in other words, this is the wrong question to be asking; the correct question to be asking is, "why DON'T we need to have that noun after the comma?" i.e., that question would show your understanding of the fact that this correct answer must represent a correct construction.

please clarify #1; thanks.

-- ron

[shimbal80]

Dear Ron/ stacey,

I am confused by "placeholder it" in manhattan gmat strategy page 231.
I choose the answer A. because " heavy commitment ...., makes it likely to miss ...." as following the placeholder IT.
I think it is correct , because "IT" postpones infinitive (to miss) .

Any way, if answer A is wrong, is the following correct?
" heavy commitment makes it likely for executive to miss or ...."
it can refer to " to miss or ...."

I am confused, please help me.

in addition, in answer E, is it correct to say:
" heavily committed to a ...." I eliminate the word "being"? if No , could you explain why?

Thanks in advance

[mschwrtz]

Yeah Ron, what about that ; )?

You know, I had never thought about this question before, but a quick google search on the grammar of ones as a plural object/subject pronoun rather than as a possessive leads to... about nothing.

OK, I did find examples of ones used in this way, at brainyquote.com, a site previously unknown to me. See if you can spot what feature all of these examples share:

The worst thing about new books is that they keep us from reading the old ones.
John Wooden

Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.
Albert Einstein

It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong.
Thomas Jefferson

Your net worth to the world is usually determined by what remains after your bad habits are subtracted from your good ones.
Benjamin Franklin

In every one of these cases, ones is preceded by an adjective, and the antecedent which ones replaces is preceded by a different adjective. The SC question we're considering does not share that feature.

And what feature do all of these examples share?

Love begins by taking care of the closest ones - the ones at home.
Mother Teresa

Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.
Barack Obama

Coaches who can outline plays on a black board are a dime a dozen. The ones who win get inside their player and motivate.
Vince Lombardi

In each of these cases ones could be replaced by the demonstrative pronoun those. The SC question we're considering does not share that feature.

There are some additional nuances, but none relevant to this question.

[akudutta]

E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

shouldn't E have the noun "executives" after the comma?

1) which comma? i'm not really sure what you mean here.

2) don't forget that CORRECT ANSWERS ARE CORRECT.
therefore, the answer to your question is automatically "no, we don't need to have that noun there."
in other words, this is the wrong question to be asking; the correct question to be asking is, "why DON'T we need to have that noun after the comma?" i.e., that question would show your understanding of the fact that this correct answer must represent a correct construction.

please clarify #1; thanks.

-- ron

Hi Ron,

I will try to clarify #1. I think he meant
shouldn't E have the noun "executives" after the second comma?

Isn't "Being heavily committed to a course of action,....,an executive is likely to miss...." the correct usage?
I thought the phrase "Being heavily committed to a course of action.." should modify ""executives" but that does not seem to be the case with E.
Please explain.

Thanks.