Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

I remember you mentioning that whenever "being" is expressing an IDENTITY or CHARACTERISTIC of something, then we should eliminate it right away. Is that correct?

When it's used as a modifier, then this is normally a safe elimination. (If the modifier describes something happening at exactly that time"”e.g., "This camera makes noise that annoys the model being photographed""”then it can be fine. Otherwise, no.)

"Being committed" here, though, is a noun. In fact, it's no less than the subject of the entire sentence.

[SC312]

Ron,

In the following non-underlined part of this GMAT Prep question, how does the "being"work :

Performing a risky maneuver that required precision flying, space shuttle astronauts retrieved an orbiting satellite and simultaneously avoided being rear-ended by a passing ultraviolet telescope.

Is the "being rear-ended" treated as a noun ?

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Is the "being rear-ended" treated as a noun ?

Thanks

Indeed.

You can replace it with, e.g., "a crash", "an accident", or "a disaster".

[lindaliu9273]

Why can't we use "ones" here after "misinterpreting"? I know "them" is fine, but don't know why "ones" is not acceptable?
Please elaborate on the above two questions.
Thank you very much , Ron.

Mutually exclusive.

"Them" = the same things/people that were mentioned previously. I.e., the use of them specifically indicates that you are NOT further narrowing the group.

"Ones" = used ONLY with a modifier/description that further narrows the group.
E.g., All of the houses were damaged, except the ones farthest from the shoreline.
In most of these cases, "those" can be used instead of "the ones", so, honestly, you won't see "the ones" very often. You'll only see it if it would be impossible (or extremely awkward) to use "those""”e.g., Leather jackets are expensive in general, but the most expensive ones can cost as much as new cars.

Hi Ron,
Thanks for your helpful explanation. I have a further question: should one and ones refer to the same antecedent? like it&its, they&them?

[RonPurewal]

Thanks for your helpful explanation. I have a further question: should one and ones refer to the same antecedent? like it&its, they&them?

It's rather unlikely that you'd see both of these in a single sentence.
If both of them were to appear in the same clause, it would be best for them to refer to the same entity.
(If the context were absolutely clear, nothing would bar them from standing for different things, though I don't see how that would be possible unless they appeared in different clauses.)

[lindaliu9273]

Thanks for your helpful explanation. I have a further question: should one and ones refer to the same antecedent? like it&its, they&them?

It's rather unlikely that you'd see both of these in a single sentence.
If both of them were to appear in the same clause, it would be best for them to refer to the same entity.
(If the context were absolutely clear, nothing would bar them from standing for different things, though I don't see how that would be possible unless they appeared in different clauses.)

Yes. Thank you! I think B is a incorrect because there's one and ones.

[RonPurewal]

Perhaps.

You can eliminate that choice more concretely, though, because it conveys a completely different (and incorrect) meaning.

According to that answer choice, "an executive ... makes xxxx unlikely". That's nonsense; it's the exective's excessive commitment that makes certain undesirable things likely.

[PARULB924]

you're actually asking the wrong question; the question you should be asking is when you should eliminate "being".
the answer to that question is, ROUGHLY, that you should avoid "being" when expressing the IDENTITY or CHARACTERISTICS of some individual or thing. this is because "being" is usually unnecessary in such cases; there are simpler modifiers (such as appositives) that, while absolutely impossible to use in spoken language, are better in written language.
example:
being a cigar aficionado, john has strong opinions on when to use single-guillotine cigar cutters rather than double-guillotine cutters. --> bad.
a cigar aficionado, john has strong opinions on when to use single-guillotine cigar cutters rather than double-guillotine cutters. --> good. notice that we can simply omit the "being" here.

you don't want to omit "being" here, because it's not expressing identity: in the context of (e), it's a necessary verbal. (nice litmus test: try omitting it and see whether the sentence is still viable, perhaps with minor modifications. here, it isn't.)

so, to sum up:
if "being" expresses IDENTITY or CHARACTERISTICS, then kill it.
otherwise, evaluate it on the same merits as you would any other verb.

Hello

According to your explanation we should not use 'being' if it expresses IDENTITY or CHARACTERISTICS.

However, in option E, doesn't 'being' describe the characteristics of the executives. The characteristic highlighted is : "heavily committed to a course of action ".

Doubt 2: Why is option A incorrect ?
I eliminated A because in "makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear " there is no subject in the sentence who performs the actions of 'missing the signs' and 'misinterpreting them'.
Could you explain the flaw in option A ?

[RonPurewal]

However, in option E, doesn't 'being' describe the characteristics of the executives. The characteristic highlighted is : "heavily committed to a course of action ".

That discussion applies to the use of modifiers.

In choice E, "being committed" is the subject of the entire sentence, so it clearly can't be left out!

[RonPurewal]

Doubt 2: Why is option A incorrect ?
I eliminated A because in "makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear " there is no subject in the sentence who performs the actions of 'missing the signs' and 'misinterpreting them'.
Could you explain the flaw in option A ?

The problem is the pronoun "it". In its current position, that pronoun would have to stand for "an executive" (impossible, since an executive would be "he" and/or "she").

This sentence is correct:
Intoxication makes drivers likely to have accidents.
This makes sense because the drivers are likely to have accidents.
In the sentence above ("makes ____ likely to do xxxx and yyyy"), the "___" must be "executives".

[ZHUOC614]

Hi RON,

though I have read your explanation on choice A, but I have a similar doubt with a former student.

Can't the "it" in A be a placeholder? Since I can't figure out the difference between the example given as a usage of placeholder it in the post you linked to and the one in choice A, I sincerely hope that you can clarify the difference and help me out!

The rain made it + quite challenging + to drive on the freeway.

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.

Thanks a lot!

[RonPurewal]

That's a nonsense interpretation, because, in that case, you're not talking about errors committed by the executive anymore.

In that kind of sentence, the meaning is that "it is ____" for ANYONE to perform that action.
E.g., The rain made it difficult to drive on the freeway ––> It became difficult for ANYONE to drive on the freeway.

So, if choice A is interpreted in that way, its meaning becomes "Excessive commitment by an executive makes it easy for anyone to miss signs of trouble."
Nonsense.

[ZHUOC614]

I understand it now! Rather great explanation!

[tim]

Glad to hear it!

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Hi Ron,

I remember you mentioning that whenever "being" is expressing an IDENTITY or CHARACTERISTIC of something, then we should eliminate it right away. Is that correct?

When it's used as a modifier, then this is normally a safe elimination. (If the modifier describes something happening at exactly that time"”e.g., "This camera makes noise that annoys the model being photographed""”then it can be fine. Otherwise, no.)

"Being committed" here, though, is a noun. In fact, it's no less than the subject of the entire sentence.

Hi Ron,

To take this a step further -- since "Being committed" is the subject, what is the verb? Would the verb be "to make"?

Thanks!