Heavy commitment by an executive

[a.karajgikar]

I could not find this question while searching hence the post.

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

A. Same as above.

B.An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action,especially one that worked in the past,makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.

C.An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked in the past.

D.Executives' being heavily committed to a course of action,especially if it has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear.

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.


This is a GMAT PREP 1 question. OA : E


I could narrow down to C and E. However,I chose (C) because Being {in option (E)} is always almost redundant.

I thought, 'it' {in option (C)} is not ambiguous because OBJECT OF PREPOSITION normally does not act as an antecedent. Looks like this is where I made a mistake.

I have already gone through Ron's post about pronouns:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/post40400.html#p40400

I am pretty much convinced with option E as ambiguous 'it' is intelligently removed here.


Q. Is there any other reason besides pronoun reference to eliminate C?
Please validate my reasoning too.
Thanks as always :)

[a.karajgikar]

Sorry.I have mistakenly posted in Test day forum.
Could you please move it to appropriate location as I may not have privilege to do so?

[p_sheshang]

Hi:

Don't quote on the technicality but the way I look at it is:

In C: ...appear, especially if it has worked in the past, "Especially" changes appear and/or signs and not the "course of action." You should ask, "what type of course of action?" The one that has especially worked in the past should be next to the action spaced by a comma.

I think E uses it properly. If you read the sentence without including the "especially...in the past" clause, the senctence would still make sense.

Not the best explanation but hope it helps.

[gmatwork]

In this question I was tied between (e) and (c) and ended up picking (e) thinking that being is almost always incorrect on GMAT. Now (c) is not right because of ambiguity in usage of 'it' ( which is not an absolute rule to eliminate a choice.

Can you please suggest how I can avoid making this type of mistake in the future?

Is there any other issue in (c) other than pronoun usage?

Can you please give me some examples of possible uses of being that we can see in correct answer choices? When do we really need to use 'being'?

[nakul.maheshwari000]

I narrowed it down to "c" and "e" too, but I chose "e" in the end.

Reason:
C- In the second part of the sentence - "if it has" doesn't define properly what has? What has worked in the past? Is it the course of action or is it the signs of incipient trouble?
Also the word "or" cannot be by itself if I am correct. It should be "either miss or misinterpret signs". I hope I am correct here and if not, someone please let me know.

E - clearly deines what has worked in the past. It is a modifier to the first statement and if you take the modifier out of context, it still works.

[kannan_m_80]

I am going to resurrect this thread here, please let me know if you guys agree to my line of reasoning, I cant seem to understand why A is wrong. Please provide guidance.

Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it (Refers to course of action, Course is singular so 'It' is fine here)) has worked well in the past, makes it (This 'it' does not need an antecedent necessarily?) likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them (refers to signs, plural so 'them' is fine) when they (again plural, so its fine) do appear


A. Same as above.

B.An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action,especially one that worked in the past,makes (executive makes? so ok with Subject verb agreement)missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they (refers to signs, plural so OK?) do appear. (But the sentecne does not make sense, Exec makes signs of incipient trouble, So its wrong)

C.An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked in the past. (Can 'it' refer to signs?, signs is plural, So incorrect)

D.Executives' (Possessive? Does not make sense, so its wrong) being heavily committed to a course of action,especially if it (Refer to signs? but signs is plural) has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear.

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 (Refers to signs, which is plural So ok & correct )when they do appear.