Each year companies in United States could save as much as

[Guest79]

Each year companies in United States 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) Same
(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

The correct answer is (E) I chose it on the following grounds: -

annually is redundant because the original sentence is started with 'Each year' so (A) (B) & (C) are out. Between (D) & (E) I picked (E) because it is more concise.

Can instructors/someone - shed some more light on the grammatical aspects to choose (E) over other choices, if any.

Thanks

[esledge]

Actually, I think you lucked out a bit when you used concision as a deciding factor. By my count, (D) and (E) have the same number of words, and in fact the words themselves are longer in (E)--neither a bad thing nor a good thing on the GMAT.

Here are the only words that differentiate (D) and (E):
(D) in employee illness prevention .....improving performance of workers...
(E) by preventing illness among employees .... improved worker performance...

I think this choice boils down to idiom, although parallelism could be useful:

(D) reads "companies could save $58B in X...and gain $200B through Y" The phrasing "save $ in X" is not ideal...the only correct usage of this I can think of is "save $ in banks" (i.e. to specify location of saved money). That is not the purpose here.

(E) reads "companies could save $58B by preventing X...and gain $200B through Y" where the correct idiom "save $ by doing X" (i.e. to specify how money is saved) is used. Also, X and Y are parallel nouns (illness and performance) correctly completing the idioms "by preventing X (one thing) ...and through Y (some other thing)"

[closeup]

Thanks for helping all of us.

IN Ans D and E , how to know if the pronoun at the end (they) is referring to employess not to companies.

[StaceyKoprince]

They refers to companies, not employees. Structure of the sentence: Companies could do X if they (the same companies) did Y. All of the stuff in X and Y is just detail, not part of the core.

[igordudchenko]

They refers to companies, not employees. Structure of the sentence: Companies could do X if they (the same companies) did Y. All of the stuff in X and Y is just detail, not part of the core.

Stacey, please explain: if 'they' refers to companies what is the meaning of:

gain as much as $200 billion through improved worker performance if they (COMPANIES) simply provided with fresh air.

I thought it is employees who shall be provided with fresh air, not companies.

[jnelson0612]

They refers to companies, not employees. Structure of the sentence: Companies could do X if they (the same companies) did Y. All of the stuff in X and Y is just detail, not part of the core.

Stacey, please explain: if 'they' refers to companies what is the meaning of:

gain as much as $200 billion through improved worker performance if they (COMPANIES) simply provided with fresh air.

I thought it is employees who shall be provided with fresh air, not companies.

I think that "with" has to be incorrect in the original sentence. It should read "if they simply provided fresh air". Thus, it is the companies who are doing the providing of the fresh air.

[violetwind]

yea,the last underlined word "offices" should not be underlined.

[RonPurewal]

yea,the last underlined word "offices" should not be underlined.

fixed, thanks.

[violetwind]

yea,the last underlined word "offices" should not be underlined.

fixed, thanks.

:-) Glad that I can help.

[jnelson0612]

Yes, thanks!

[Aksy]

So choice E is equivalent to - Each year companies in the United State could save as much as $58 billion by preventing illness among employees and could gain as much as $200 billion through improved worker performance if they simply provided offices with cleaner air.

The use of conditional tense "could" in the 2nd half is clear as it is accompanied by the past tense "provided". But I am unable to understand the use of "could" with the verb "preventing" which is in the present tense.

Shouldn't the conditional verb could/would be accompanied by a verb in past tense?

Could somebody please help me understand?

[RonPurewal]

The use of conditional tense "could" in the 2nd half is clear as it is accompanied by the past tense "provided". But I am unable to understand the use of "could" with the verb "preventing" which is in the present tense.

no.
"preventing" is a noun form ("gerund"), as can be seen from the fact that it's the object of a preposition (by).
it's not a verb at all -- in fact, -ING forms by themselves are never verbs -- so it doesn't have a tense.

[shubham_sagijain]

The use of conditional tense "could" in the 2nd half is clear as it is accompanied by the past tense "provided". But I am unable to understand the use of "could" with the verb "preventing" which is in the present tense.

no.
"preventing" is a noun form ("gerund"), as can be seen from the fact that it's the object of a preposition (by).
it's not a verb at all -- in fact, -ING forms by themselves are never verbs -- so it doesn't have a tense.

Ron,

Could you please elaborate on what factors we can eliminate other answer choices easily ?

Thanks,
Shubh

[RonPurewal]

hi shubham,
please ask a more specific question.

what do you already understand?
what don't you understand?
are you having particular trouble with any one specific answer choice?

thanks.

[anubhavgilhotra]

hi

Can you please explain why preventing is a gerund and how come improving is not a gerund. I have read the post but was not able to understand. Secondly how can we parallel preventing illness - through improved worker performance.

Thanks