Each year companies in the United State could save as much as $58 billion annually by preventing illness among employees and gain as much as $200 billion through improving performance of workers if they simply provided offices with cleaner air.
A. annually by preventing illness among employees and gain as much as $200 billion through improving performance of workers if they simply provided
B. annually if they prevented employee illness and gain as much as $200 billion through worker performance improved by simply providing
C. annually in employee illness prevention and gain as much as $200 billion through worker performance improved by simply providing
D. in employee illness prevention and gain as much as $200 billion through improving performance of workers if they simply provided
E. by preventing illness among employees and gain as much as $200 billion through improved worker performance if they simply provided
GMAT prep
Eliminate A, B , C : each year , annually : redudant
Pls help expain D & E.
IMO, E has better meaning. How could companies save : by preventing illness among employees.
Can you explain "through improving performance of workers" in D & "through improved worker performance" in E ?
GMAT Forum
8 postsPage 1 of 1
- HPhuong
- Guest
SC
OA is E
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
the biggest problem i can see with choice (d) is the phrase "in employee illness prevention". this phrase implies, absurdly enough, that "employee illness prevention" itself can actually be measured in dollars.
in both (d) and (e), the pronoun "they" is ambiguous, at least if you cast as wide a net as possible for possible antecedents: choice (d) offers both "companies" and "workers", and choice (e) offers both "employees" and "workers".
the gmat is no stranger to this sort of ambiguity. in such cases - where all of the grammatically viable sentences contain at least some measure of pronoun ambiguity - you can go with the criterion that i've given in this post (the link should go directly to the post in question; you shouldn't have to scroll up or down). by this criterion, both sentences (d) and (e) are fine, as "companies" is subject of the main clause and "they" is the subject of the subordinate clause (following "if").
one could also claim that the ambiguity in choice (d) is somehow "worse" than the ambiguity in (e), because the false antecedent ("workers") is extremely close to the pronoun, making it more likely to be mistaken for the true antecedent. i think there's something to be said for such proximity in process of elimination, but i'd have to look more into the issue before coming to a judgment for sure.
in both (d) and (e), the pronoun "they" is ambiguous, at least if you cast as wide a net as possible for possible antecedents: choice (d) offers both "companies" and "workers", and choice (e) offers both "employees" and "workers".
the gmat is no stranger to this sort of ambiguity. in such cases - where all of the grammatically viable sentences contain at least some measure of pronoun ambiguity - you can go with the criterion that i've given in this post (the link should go directly to the post in question; you shouldn't have to scroll up or down). by this criterion, both sentences (d) and (e) are fine, as "companies" is subject of the main clause and "they" is the subject of the subordinate clause (following "if").
one could also claim that the ambiguity in choice (d) is somehow "worse" than the ambiguity in (e), because the false antecedent ("workers") is extremely close to the pronoun, making it more likely to be mistaken for the true antecedent. i think there's something to be said for such proximity in process of elimination, but i'd have to look more into the issue before coming to a judgment for sure.
8 posts Page 1 of 1