Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action

[RonPurewal]

"to+verb" isn't a verb. (try writing a sentence with "to+verb" as the main verb; it won't work.) that's the right part of the sentence, though.

"is" is the verb. (x is likely to make someone do something.)

[liu1993918]

Dear instructors, what I want to ask is that how to process question like this one?
The 6th edition of SC guide told me that the 1st step is taking a first glance. It seems to me that taking a first glace cannot work on a problem which is totally underlined.
After I read the question, I try to find the splits between options. However, It is difficult to spot an error in one sentence and eliminate other choices with the same error, because those choices are in different structure. It seems to me that I have to read the answers one by one.

[RonPurewal]

It is difficult to spot an error in one sentence and eliminate other choices with the same error, because those choices are in different structure. It seems to me that I have to read the answers one by one.

it shouldn't be "difficult" to find the corresponding parts of the sentence. just find the words that mean the same thing.

when you're using the word "difficult" here, i suspect that you actually mean "a little more time-consuming".

if that's what you mean, then, two things:

1/
...yes, some problems will take more time than others. that's how life works.

2/
when the entire sentence is underlined, you may spend more time finding corresponding structures ("splits"), but there's a big offsetting factor——because there's no non-underlined part, you'll spend ZERO time having to look up and down and up and down, re-connecting the answer choices with the non-underlined part (a BIG time commitment in all other problems).

[MonroeC973]

Is the following a valid reason to eliminate A?

The first "it" refers to the "course of action". The second "it" is a dummy pronoun (assuming the dummy pronoun usage is correct, while it sounds like the usage is incorrect in this case). Because both instances of "it" don't refer to the same thing, the pronoun usage is considered ambiguous.

[RonPurewal]

the second does NOT satisfy the requirements for what you're calling a "dummy pronoun".

1/
It is likely that X will decrease.
--> here, "it" is your "dummy" pronoun. the thing that will probably decrease is "X".

2/
It is likely to decrease.
--> here, "it" is a normal pronoun. it has to stand for the thing that will probably decrease.

the second "it" in choice A is like #2, not like #1. so it's wrong.

[MonroeC973]

Thanks for the fast response.

The OG sc companion cites this reason as grounds to eliminate A. While it's clear that the second "it" does not qualify as a dummy pronoun in this case, I was wondering if this rule was valid to apply to future problems - specifically, that the use of a non-dummy "it" and a dummy "it" in the same sentence is ambiguous usage (assuming the dummy usage is correct).

[RonPurewal]

i wouldn't automatically dismiss such a possibility. for instance, as an editor i would see nothing wrong with the following sentence: You may not remember the event very well, but it's impossible that you've forgotten it completely.
(in fact, i bet you didn't even notice the two "it"s in your first read-through)

[RonPurewal]

on the other hand, the million-dollar question here is, "will GMAC write a sentence like that?"
to that, i'd venture to say no.

[TingP565]

Hi Ron,
In the OG explanation, the modifier "when they do appear" in choice b is misplaced.
I don't know why it is misplaced, it seems the only difference between these two modifiers in choice a&b is the placement of "likely"

choice b
making signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear

choice c
is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear

thanks in advance

[sukriti.bahl]

Hi Ron,

You've said that when "being" expresses an identity or characteristics of an individual , one should avoid using it. Could you give a couple of more examples explaining this again. Both when "being" is correct and when its not.

Also, if this sentence was structured as below, would it be correct? If not why?

"heavy commitment 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"

Thanks

Ron--
When is it okay for one to use "being"? could you please give me an example?
i have this sense of urgency to eliminate an ans choice with "being" in it

please help!!!

thanks,
jamie

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.

[jhuman lal meena]

Though the issue has been discussed, how can we use adverb of past time "in the past" with present perfect?
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.

Ron has tried to explain this doubt with the help of an example but he has avoided the use of any adverb of past time in his example.

EXPLANATION BY RON
the present perfect can actually be used for a past action -- even one that does not continue to the present and that has no chance of ever recurring -- as long as that action is relevant to the present situation in some way.

for instance:
i played high school football in the early to mid-1990s. obviously, i will never play high school football again; also, this action is distinctly in the past (since i graduated from high school almost twenty years ago). nevertheless, observe the following usages, both of which are correct:

(Talking to someone in a bar, in a situation that has nothing directly to do with high school football)
I played high school football.
here, the normal past tense is used, because this event is just presented as something that happened in the past, with no apparent connection to the present situation.
BUT
(At an interview for a coaching position in high school football)
I have played high school football, so I know what the players will experience. [HERE NO ADVERB OF PAST TIME IS USED].
here, the past perfect tense is used -- even though it's the same event in the same timeframe -- because the event is now directly relevant to the present timeframe.

Also please note the following GMATPREP problem, options B and C are incorrect because they use adverb of past time between 1876 and 1904 with have led (present perfect).

[GMATPREP] Concerns about public health led to the construction between 1876 and 1904 of three separate sewer systems to serve metropolitan Boston.
(A) Concerns about public health led to the construction between 1876 and 1904 of three separate sewer systems to serve
(B) Concerns about public health have led to the construction of three separate sewer systems between 1876 and 1904 to serve
(C) Concerns about public health have led between 1876 and 1904 to the construction of three separate sewer systems for serving
(D)There were concerns about public health leading to the construction between 1876 and 1904 of three separate sewer systems serving
(E) There were concerns leading between 1876 and 1904 to the construction of three separate sewer systems for serving

[RonPurewal]

please use the 'quote' tags to quote stuff—especially if you're going to amass several quotes into one big long post. (i am dyslexic; i do not handle 'walls of text' well.)

i suspect that this post will answer your question:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p114789

[CrystalSpringston]

I know option (D) is wrong because "misinterpreting" should be "misinterpret".
I just want to confirm whether in "... makes them likely to ..." "them" is also wrong, since "Executives’ being" is a possessive.

yep.
possessives are adjectives, not nouns, so executives' is not an appropriate antecedent for a pronoun.

Hi Ron,
I think "them" in D may be acceptable even though only the possessive is used previously.
I remember the rule is * POSSESSIVE NOUN with NON-POSSESSIVE PRONOUN is NOT OK.BUT
ALL OTHER COMBINATIONS are ok.

Pls correct me if anything I understand goes wrong.
Thank you

[RonPurewal]

the most important thing about that is ... not to think about that.
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p115704

[RonPurewal]

choice D contains blatant non-parallelism. so, other concerns in choice D are merely a distraction from the non-parallelism.