SC: According to some analysts, the gains :

[thanghnvn]

I do not agree the use of "had done" in choice A, the oa.

on gmat, on other questions from og books and gmatprep, to use "had done" we need a past point of time for it, the past point of time a past action or a past point of time.

[tim]

I came to the right answer by splitting between A.D. vs. B.C.E, starting with "that the economy" vs. "in the economy" - the latter seemed like the economy was going to avoid something, but since the economy is not a "living" thing, how can it avoid something?

Was I lucky in coming to my conclusion or was that an appropriate split?

I don't actually see how the logic you applied to the split you worked with could lead you to the correct answer. There is no reason the economy can't do something, regardless of whether it is a living thing. To assume otherwise would likely cause you to eliminate all five answer choices here.

[tim]

I do not agree the use of "had done" in choice A, the oa.

on gmat, on other questions from og books and gmatprep, to use "had done" we need a past point of time for it, the past point of time a past action or a past point of time.

OFFICIALLY CORRECT ANSWERS ARE CORRECT!
do not question officially correct answers!
far too many students on this forum make the mistake of questioning the correct answers; please note that doing so is a complete waste of your time and effort. i.e., exactly 0% of the time that you spend posting "isn't this official answer wrong?" is productive, and exactly 100% of that time is wasted.

"is this correct?" is never a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers. the answer is always yes.
"is this wrong?" / "is this X type of error?" is never a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers. the answer is always no.

instead, the questions you should be asking about correct official answers, if you don't understand them, are:
"why is this correct?"
"how does this work?"
"what understanding am i lacking that i need to understand this choice?"

this is a small, but hugely significant, change to your way of thinking.
you will suddenly find it much easier to understand the format, style, and conventions of the official problems if you retire the idea that they might be wrong.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

I came to the right answer by splitting between A.D. vs. B.C.E, starting with "that the economy" vs. "in the economy" - the latter seemed like the economy was going to avoid something, but since the economy is not a "living" thing, how can it avoid something?

Was I lucky in coming to my conclusion or was that an appropriate split?

I don't actually see how the logic you applied to the split you worked with could lead you to the correct answer. There is no reason the economy can't do something, regardless of whether it is a living thing. To assume otherwise would likely cause you to eliminate all five answer choices here.

Isn't one option implying that the Economy is performing the action while the other option implies that the action is performed ON the economy?

[RonPurewal]

Not really. "Confidence in X to do Y" just isn't a thing in the English language at all (= it's "unidiomatic").

[rte.sushil]

it is mentioned that
The gains ......reflect ......to avoid and instead to come is unidiomatic.

is it just because of "to"? many times we repeat "to" in parallelism.

2.) In list of idioms of manhattan , it is mentioned that
We have confidence that the market will recover...is right[similar to option A/E]
we have confidence in the market's ability to recover...is suspect [similar to option C]
We have confidence in market to recover..wrong [similar to B/D]

So can i say that B and D is rejected because confidence in economy to avoid is wrong


3.) I think i am not so familiar with "and " before instead.
As i read in posts, i think it is fine to have and before instead or rather.
Are there any special conditions for using "and" before instead or rather?
One example i found was:
They avoided the arcade and instead went to movie.
but without "and", the sentence could have been better.
They avoided the arcade , instead went to movie .

please confirm.

[RonPurewal]

it is mentioned that
The gains ......reflect ......to avoid and instead to come is unidiomatic.

There's nothing wrong with these; they're parallel.

"It is mentioned" where?

[RonPurewal]

3.) I think i am not so familiar with "and " before instead.
As i read in posts, i think it is fine to have and before instead or rather.
Are there any special conditions for using "and" before instead or rather?

These are completely different issues.

* "And" is a connector. If it is added or removed, the grammar of the sentence changes.

* "Rather" and "instead" are adverbs. Adverbs have no effect on grammar, so their inclusion/exclusion is entirely a matter of context.

[RonPurewal]

One example i found was:
They avoided the arcade and instead went to movie.
but without "and", the sentence could have been better.
They avoided the arcade , instead went to movie .

No. That's not a sentence.

Remember, adverbs have no effect on grammar. So, mechanically, that "sentence" is the same as They avoided the arcade, went to a movie.
Not a sentence. You can't have two verbs in a row without some sort of connector.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

2 Questions:

1) I tried to apply parallelism here and preferred BCD over AE in the "beauty contest" department.

C: To avoid the depression and to gradually improve

looked better than:

A: will rebound and instead gradually improve.

Where did I miscalculate this?


2) That is supposed to reference a clause and in is followed by a noun. Is that a good reason to get rid of BCD?

One additional question to point 2: -- confidence in the economy to void -- isn't "in" followed by a noun "the economy"? Would that satisfy the requirement of "in" + noun or do I have to look further down? If so, how far do i look? Until I hit a comma/and etc?

[RonPurewal]

2 Questions:

1) I tried to apply parallelism here and preferred BCD over AE in the "beauty contest" department.

C: To avoid the depression and to gradually improve

looked better than:

A: will rebound and instead gradually improve.

I don't see the words "gradually improve"—or anything even passingly similar—anywhere in this problem. Wrong thread, maybe?

[RonPurewal]

2) That is supposed to reference a clause and in is followed by a noun. Is that a good reason to get rid of BCD?

"In ___ to ___" isn't always wrong; it depends on intention. For instance, "I put the money in a safe to protect it from burglars" is fine.

Note how that example works, though.
If "have confidence in ____ to ____" were workable, it would have a similar meaning—i.e., "to have confidence in ___ ... in order to ____". That's nonsense here.

[RonPurewal]

One additional question to point 2: -- confidence in the economy to void -- isn't "in" followed by a noun "the economy"? Would that satisfy the requirement of "in" + noun or do I have to look further down? If so, how far do i look? Until I hit a comma/and etc?

This question, I honestly don't understand.

[HemantR606]

Hi Ron,

To me, the 'had' in the OA seemed to be unnecessary here. 'According to some analysts' clearly present event here because the verb used with it is 'reflect'.

Please explain how the use of 'had' can be justified here even though there is no other past event that happened after 'feared'.


Thanks in advance,
Hemant

[RonPurewal]

read this:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p58397

the same idea is at work here: "had feared" represents something that's finished.
(people stopped having these fears; the fears yielded to "growing confidence".)

(was there an answer choice you thought was better?)