By applying optimization techniques commonly used

[marsha_yuan]

By applying optimization techniques commonly used to plan operations, it is possible to determine how much effort ought to be devoted to each of a company’s products in order to meet its goals in both the short and long terms.

a. it is possible to determine how much effort ought to be devoted to each of a company’s products in order to meet its goals in both the short and long terms

b. a company’s managers can determine how much effort should be dedicated to each of the company’s products in order to meet its short and long term goals

c. it can be determined by company managers how much effort ought to be devoted to each of the company’s products in order to meet its goals, both short and long term

d. it may be possible for company managers to determine how much effort should be dedicated to each of these products in order to meet the company’s short and long term goals

e. managers at a company can determine how much effort ought to be dedicated to each of these products in order to meet the company’s goals in both the short and long term

Can you please explain why B is correct rather than E? I believe the "its" in B has no clear referent. Since company's is an adjective, it cannot serve as an antecedent to the pronoun "it". In this case, E appears to be a better answer because it resolves the modifier issue and eliminates the pronoun "its"

[natzmyid]

E wrong: what is 'these products' referring to?
A,C,D wrong: Dangling modifier: there is no noun that the modifying phrase modifies.

B right: 'its' is a possessive pronoun that refers back to company's (a possessive noun). This is alright.

Remember the rule, possessive pronouns can refer back to possessive nouns.
However object and subject pronouns cannot refer back to possessive nouns.

[amitganguly2k12]

In that case it is the managers who are applying the technique and not the company.So,don't you think that rather than it's,their should be used as the possessive pronoun to refer back.

I chose D over B because of this reason.

Please clarify.

[RonPurewal]

By applying optimization techniques commonly used to plan operations, it is possible to determine how much effort ought to be devoted to each of a company’s products in order to meet its goals in both the short and long terms.

a. it is possible to determine how much effort ought to be devoted to each of a company’s products in order to meet its goals in both the short and long terms

b. a company’s managers can determine how much effort should be dedicated to each of the company’s products in order to meet its short and long term goals

c. it can be determined by company managers how much effort ought to be devoted to each of the company’s products in order to meet its goals, both short and long term

d. it may be possible for company managers to determine how much effort should be dedicated to each of these products in order to meet the company’s short and long term goals

e. managers at a company can determine how much effort ought to be dedicated to each of these products in order to meet the company’s goals in both the short and long term

Can you please explain why B is correct rather than E? I believe the "its" in B has no clear referent. Since company's is an adjective, it cannot serve as an antecedent to the pronoun "it". In this case, E appears to be a better answer because it resolves the modifier issue and eliminates the pronoun "its"

no.

the rule is that NON-POSSESSIVE pronouns can't refer to POSSESSIVE nouns.
"its" is a possessive pronoun, so it can have either a possessive or a non-possessive noun as its antecedent.

also, "these products" doesn't make sense; the pronoun these would mean that certain products have already been mentioned elsewhere in the sentence.

[navdeep_bajwa]

The rule is that NON-POSSESSIVE pronouns can't refer to POSSESSIVE nouns.
"its" is a possessive pronoun, so it can have either a possessive or a non-possessive noun as its antecedent.

Ron is the rule mentioned true only for its for any possessive pronoun can refer to either possessive or non possessive

Also, Subject Pronoun must refer to Subject Noun and Object Pronoun must refer to Object Noun
Is this rule correct it is mentioned in MGMAT SC Guide

Also, "these products" doesn't make sense; the pronoun "these" would mean that certain products have already been mentioned elsewhere in the sentence.

Also Why "these" does not make sense can you please elaborate

[zchampz]

another reason I picked the answer choice B over E is ...it should be company’s goals in both the short and long terms rather than company’s goals in both the short and long term

Isn't it?

Thx,
Champ

[tim]

Any possessive pronoun can refer to a possessive, subjective or objective pronoun. "These products" doesn't make sense because the sentence doesn't make clear which products are being referred to..

The rule is that NON-POSSESSIVE pronouns can't refer to POSSESSIVE nouns.
"its" is a possessive pronoun, so it can have either a possessive or a non-possessive noun as its antecedent.

Ron is the rule mentioned true only for its for any possessive pronoun can refer to either possessive or non possessive

Also, Subject Pronoun must refer to Subject Noun and Object Pronoun must refer to Object Noun
Is this rule correct it is mentioned in MGMAT SC Guide

Also, "these products" doesn't make sense; the pronoun "these" would mean that certain products have already been mentioned elsewhere in the sentence.

Also Why "these" does not make sense can you please elaborate

[tim]

Both B and E say "long term", but you're right about the difference. To say "terms" implies that there are multiple short terms and multiple long terms, which makes no sense here..

another reason I picked the answer choice B over E is ...it should be company’s goals in both the short and long terms rather than company’s goals in both the short and long term

Isn't it?

Thx,
Champ

[Bruno2000]

One issue that led me to mark E over B,even though E had "these" and no reference as to what "these" referred to had been earlier made, I would like to ask you guys to clarify to me
why "a company’s managers" isn't wrong as well?? when the sentence started with "a" I assumed it should refer to ONE manager only, and NOT managers, which is obviously plural. Can anyone show what I'm missing out??

Thanks guys!

[vijaykumar.kondepudi]

I am still confused regarding possessive refering to subject or object pronouns. Please refer to Manhattan SC guide, Chapter 5, page 70. It says:

The Possessive Poison rule states that posessive nouns can serve as antecedents only to possessive pronouns, not to subject or object pronouns

. Is it same as what Tim mentioned in different words? Also, which of these is a correct expression and why?
a. It could have been them
b. It could have been they

Any possessive pronoun can refer to a possessive, subjective or objective pronoun. "These products" doesn't make sense because the sentence doesn't make clear which products are being referred to..

The rule is that NON-POSSESSIVE pronouns can't refer to POSSESSIVE nouns.
"its" is a possessive pronoun, so it can have either a possessive or a non-possessive noun as its antecedent.

Ron is the rule mentioned true only for its for any possessive pronoun can refer to either possessive or non possessive

Also, Subject Pronoun must refer to Subject Noun and Object Pronoun must refer to Object Noun
Is this rule correct it is mentioned in MGMAT SC Guide

Also, "these products" doesn't make sense; the pronoun "these" would mean that certain products have already been mentioned elsewhere in the sentence.

Also Why "these" does not make sense can you please elaborate

[StaceyKoprince]

why "a company’s managers" isn't wrong as well?? when the sentence started with "a" I assumed it should refer to ONE manager only, and NOT managers, which is obviously plural. Can anyone show what I'm missing out??

The word "a" goes with "company," not managers. It isn't "a managers" - it's "a company." Company is singular, so "a" is an appropriate article.

[StaceyKoprince]

I am still confused regarding possessive refering to subject or object pronouns.

This is a very confusing topic. It also almost NEVER shows up on the real test, so if you want to forget about it completely, that's okay. :)

The rule has to do with a limitation of possessive NOUNS. Don't think of this as a limit with possessive PRONOUNS - the pronouns themselves are not the limiting factor.

If you have a possessive NOUN, then the limit applies. For example, in "the cat's fur," the word "cat's" is a possessive noun. If I wanted to use a pronoun to refer to the possessive noun "cat's," I could only use a possessive pronoun.

The cat's fur makes her tail look bigger than it really is.

In this sentence the pronoun "her" is a possessive pronoun and it is referring to a possessive noun. That IS okay.

The cat's fur makes her seem really fluffy.

In this sentence, the pronoun "her" is an object pronoun and it is referring to a possessive noun. That's NOT okay.

The cat is so fluffy that her tail looks bigger than it really is.

In this sentence, the pronoun "her" is a possessive pronoun and it is referring to a regular noun. That IS okay.

So, a possessive pronoun can refer to both a regular noun and a possessive noun.

BUT if you have a possessive NOUN, you can only use a possessive pronoun to refer to it - you can't use an object or subject pronoun to refer to a possessive NOUN.

Also, which of these is a correct expression and why?
a. It could have been them
b. It could have been they

This has to do with the CASE of the pronoun. Pronouns have three cases: subject, object, and possessive. In the above sentence, the words "them / they" are in "object" format (that is, they are functioning as the object of a sentence), so we have to use the object case. For third-person plural, "them" is the object case.

"They" is the subject case. For example, you might say "They might have been there." In this sentence, "they" is functioning as the subject.

[ali1]

e. managers at a company can determine how much effort ought to be dedicated to each of these products in order to meet the company’s goals in both the short and long term

Can I rule out E because it isn't parallel? To make the underlined portion parallel, it should be "both the short and the long term" right?

[tim]

correct..

[deepak.sahrawat]

Hi, can someone please explain why below statement is not correct?

The cat's fur makes her seem really fluffy.

In this sentence, the pronoun "her" is an object pronoun and it is referring to a possessive noun. That's NOT okay.

How "her" is an object pronoun in this case and is not object pronoun in other cases as posted by StaceyKoprince.