Blaming its recent troubles on a widening recession

[tankobe]

Blaming its recent troubles on a widening recession and slow rate of technology spending, the computer company announced that it would cut 10 percent of its workforce--more than 2,000 jobs--and expected to report a loss in its third quarter.

(A) company announced that it would cut 10 percent of its workforce--more than 2,000 jobs--and expected to report a
(B) company announced that there would be a cut--10 percent of its workforce, which was more than 2,000 jobs--and expected a reported
(C) company announced the cutting of its workforce by 10 percent, more than 2,000 jobs, and it expected a reported
(D) company's announcement included the cutting of its workforce by 10 percent, or more than 2,000 jobs, and expecting to report a
(E) company's announcement included cutting its workforce--which is more than 2,000 jobs--and expecting there to be a reported

Source:GMATPrep 2 OA is A
I can pick up the right option, the only thing that is of interest to me is the comparison of the 'figure'.

C is wrong, because 10 percent of jobs, workforce etc other than 10 percent can be compared with 2000 jobs, just as X times jobs, workforce etc can be compared with Y times jobs other than Y times.
B is wrong, because was must be were, since we talk about the figure of jobs other than just the figure.

if i am wrong, please correct me!
stephen!

[melvinjose]

Blaming its recent troubles on a widening recession and slow rate of technology spending, the computer company announced that it would cut 10 percent of its workforce--more than 2,000 jobs--and expected to report a loss in its third quarter.

(B) company announced that there would be a cut--10 percent of its workforce, which was more than 2,000 jobs--and expected a reported
(C) company announced the cutting of its workforce by 10 percent, more than 2,000 jobs, and it expected a reported

Source:GMATPrep 2 OA is A
I can pick up the right option, the only thing that is of interest to me is the comparison of the 'figure'.

C is wrong, because 10 percent of jobs, workforce etc other than 10 percent can be compared with 2000 jobs, just as X times jobs, workforce etc can be compared with Y times jobs other than Y times.
B is wrong, because was must be were, since we talk about the figure of jobs other than just the figure.

if i am wrong, please correct me!
stephen!

These are just my opinions, for which i seek endorsement or correction from a professional such as Ron.
In option C: 'more than 2,000 jobs' is an adjectival modifier and correctly modifies the nearest noun '10 percent', but what makes C incorrect (apart from not introducing a clause following 'announced') is the change in meaning by saying that 'it expected a reported loss'
In option B: 'which' seems to refer to the nearest noun 'workforce' while it should have referred to '10%'.
Now what remains is whether '10% of its workforce' must take a plural or a singular verb form. My understanding, like your's, is that it must be followed by a plural verb form, though I request Ron or others to confirm/correct my understanding.

[RonPurewal]

In option C: 'more than 2,000 jobs' is an adjectival modifier and correctly modifies the nearest noun '10 percent', but what makes C incorrect (apart from not introducing a clause following 'announced') is the change in meaning by saying that 'it expected a reported loss'

looks accurate to me.
i'm not 100% sure on whether the "more than 2000 jobs" modifier is correct; i'll reserve judgment on that one until i can dig up some similar examples.

you are correct about the change in meaning. note that there's another change in meaning, too: "announced the cutting of its workforce" is not the same as "announced that it would cut...". while the latter explicitly indicates that the company itself is cutting its workforce, the former just states that some factor (which may or may not be internal to the company) is trimming the workforce.

In option B: 'which' seems to refer to the nearest noun 'workforce' while it should have referred to '10%'.

correct. good observation.

Now what remains is whether '10% of its workforce' must take a plural or a singular verb form. My understanding, like your's, is that it must be followed by a plural verb form, though I request Ron or others to confirm/correct my understanding.

nope. you'd say "10% of the workforce was" (i.e., you'd use a singular verb).

basically, if "X" is singular, then "10% of X" is still singular.
"workforce" is a collective noun and is by default singular, so "10% of the workforce" is still singular by default.

[purduesr]

Blaming its recent troubles on a widening recession and slow rate of technology spending, the computer company announced that it would cut 10 percent of its workforce--more than 2,000 jobs--and expected to report a loss in its third quarter.

(A) company announced that it would cut 10 percent of its workforce--more than 2,000 jobs--and expected to report a...
stephen!

Isn't "more than 2000" modifying workforce when it should modify 10%? If that were the case, how can A be right? Can some one clarify?

[prem5131]

Please explain what is wrong with D?

[prem5131]

Blaming its recent troubles on a widening recession and slow rate of technology spending, the computer company announced that it would cut 10 percent of its workforce--more than 2,000 jobs--and expected to report a loss in its third quarter.
================
Hi Ron,

In this OA, can you please explain what the pronouns are referring to?

Thanks.

[purduesr]

Please explain what is wrong with D?

because Ron said

you are correct about the change in meaning. note that there's another change in meaning, too: "announced the cutting of its workforce" is not the same as "announced that it would cut...". while the latter explicitly indicates that the company itself is cutting its workforce, the former just states that some factor (which may or may not be internal to the company) is trimming the workforce.

We are not supposed to change the original intended meaning of the problem, unless the original problem has absurd meaning

[RonPurewal]

Blaming its recent troubles on a widening recession and slow rate of technology spending, the computer company announced that it would cut 10 percent of its workforce--more than 2,000 jobs--and expected to report a loss in its third quarter.
================
Hi Ron,

In this OA, can you please explain what the pronouns are referring to?

Thanks.

they all refer to "the computer company".

with what did you confuse this?

[RonPurewal]

Please explain what is wrong with D?

all kinds of things.

(1)
first, you should notice the INITIAL MODIFIER "Blaming its recent troubles on a widening recession and slow rate of technology spending", which doesn't have a subject. when you see a modifier like this - which starts with a participle and doesn't have a subject - you should IMMEDIATELY assign it to the SUBJECT THAT BEGINS THE FOLLOWING CLAUSE.

in the case of (d) and (e), that's "the company's announcement", which makes no sense. therefore, you can eliminate those choices immediately.

(2)
"and expecting to report" isn't parallel to anything.

(3)
"included the cutting of its workforce" is nonsense.
taken literally (remember that EVERYTHING must be taken literally!), this would mean that the actual cutting of the workforce (i.e., not just an announcement of the cutting - but the actual firings) was included in the announcement. that's not possible.
another example:
the company memo included a notice of the year-end bonus --> makes sense
the company memo included the year-end bonus --> doesn't make sense

[manish1sinha]

Could someone please explain the following:

1)the role of double dash in the correct option:

"company announced that it would cut 10 percent of its workforce"”more than 2,000 jobs"”and expected to
report a"

2)Can we substitute commas for dashes? If yes then can someone please explain how the clause after "comma and" is an independent one.

I am not questioning the correct option but just trying to understand the concept. :)

[RonPurewal]

Could someone please explain the following:

1)the role of double dash in the correct option:

"company announced that it would cut 10 percent of its workforce"”more than 2,000 jobs"”and expected to
report a"

the dashes are basically equivalent to commas. they are used in one of three situations:

1) EMPHASIS
the above sentence is an example of this usage; the idea is that the figure (over 2000 jobs) is strikingly high, so the description is set off with dashes rather than commas to emphasize it.

2) IRONY
note the following two sentences:
john, who is from colombia, thinks that california winters are too cold.
vs.
tim -- who is from alaska -- thinks that california winters are too cold.

the first sentence makes perfect sense, in terms of common sense -- colombia is hot all the time, so it's reasonable for somebody who is from there to think that california is cold.

the second sentence doesn't really make any sense; it's ironic that somebody from alaska (which is much, much colder than california) would find california to be too cold. therefore, because of the irony in this modifier, the modifier is set off by dashes rather than by commas.

3) WHEN COMMAS WOULD CREATE AMBIGUITY
e.g.
in the picture were three of my friends, john, tim, and bob.
this sentence is ambiguous -- it could refer to three of my friends (whose names are john, tim, and bob), or it could refer to six different people (three of my friends and also john, tim, and bob).
in the picture were three of my friends -- john, tim, and bob it.
not ambiguous; there are definitely only three people under discussion.

2)Can we substitute commas for dashes? If yes then can someone please explain how the clause after "comma and" is an independent one.

I am not questioning the correct option but just trying to understand the concept. :)

yes, you can make that substitution, as long as it's one of cases #1 and #2 above (although by making that substitution you will lose the emphasis or irony conveyed by the dashes). if it's case #3, then you can't make the substitution because, by so doing, you would reintroduce the ambiguity.

you can't think of this construction as "comma + and"; that's incorrect parsing. when you block off a modifier with two commas, the commas belong to the modifier, NOT to the surrounding sentence structure.

so, the surrounding sentence structure -- which does not include the modifier -- doesn't actually have the comma before "and". (that comma is part of the modifier.)

[vicksikand]

Blaming its recent troubles on a widening recession and slow rate of technology spending, the computer company announced that it would cut 10 percent of its workforce"”more than 2.000 jobs"”and expected to report a loss in its third quarter.

Now is "expected to report a loss ..." a part of the announcement(s) - if yes then the two components must be parallel i.e. that it would cut ....and expected to report should be in parallel construction.

Will it be incorrect to say:
"The computer company announced that it expected to report a loss in its third quarter." ?

Another way to interpret it is:
The computer company announced.....and expected (both announced and expected are in parallel construction).

[ChrisB]

Hi,

Good question. The meaning of the sentence changes when you move around the verbs "expected," "announced," and "cut." Let's look at the examples you provided for some clarity.

Will it be incorrect to say:
"The computer company announced that it expected to report a loss in its third quarter." ?

You didn't provide the rest of the sentence but I'd expect it to say something like:

The computer company announced that it expected to report a loss in its third quarter and to cut more than 2,000 jobs.


Here, the conjunction "and" signals parallelism. In your sample sentence, "to report" and "to cut" are parallel. They are both infinitives and logically linked because they are actions that the company expects to take.

This meaning, however, is different from what may be intended. Specifically "it would cut" is more definite than "expected to cut." The former is planned and probably not reversible whereas the latter is something that is likely but not certainly likely to happen in the future.

Another way to interpret it is:
The computer company announced.....and expected (both announced and expected are in parallel construction).

Be careful! Announced and expected are both past tense verbs but they are not necessarily structurally similar. That is because expected is a conditional verb. Expected is thus parallel with "would cut," which is also a conditional verb. A conditional verb expresses a result that is expected from a condition. In this case the conditions are the widening recession, etc.

You can also examine the logical link between "would cut" and "expect to report." Both are uncertain events in the future contingent upon the bad economy. "announced" is certainly a past action taken by the company, whereas "expected" implies that the action has yet to be taken.

This is a really tough case because the conditional comes up so infrequently. Thanks for pointing it out and in the future make sure you're aware of all of these conditional verbs by checking out the advanced section of the sentence correction strategy guide. The common conditional verbs are would, could, might, may and expect. Make sure you can recognize those in the future and you'll be in much better shape.

Thanks,
Chris

[vicksikand]

Thanks Chris !
I was under the impression that Conditional verbs/Modal auxiliaries are parallel to the verbs in the past tense and the and verbs in present tense are usually parallel to those in the future tense. Ref: Chapter 7 (pg 111) -Verb Tense, Mood, & Voice Strategy, MGMAT SC

Also please confirm whether Conditional verbs are the same as modal auxiliaries. I havent dealt much with conditionals, however, modal axillary verbs are close to what you refer to as "conditional verbs"

M Aux Verbs: defined as the grammaticalized expression of the subjective attitude of the speaker, which includes opinions about possibility, probability, necessity, obligation, permissibility, ability, desire, and contingency. The nine English modal auxiliary verbs are:
can
could
may
might
must
shall
should
will
would

[tim]

Hi Vicks,
The nine verbs you list are often used with conditionals but do not always signify a conditional. As for your question about which things are parallel with which tenses, I don’t think parallelism is really the issue you are talking about. Can you be more specific about what you’re referring to and how parallelism fits into the discussion?

@Ron - I know I’ve complained to you about how cold California winters are, but I didn’t realize I’d told you that I’ve lived in Alaska! Thanks for calling me out on my climatological idiosyncrasies.. :P