GMATPrep - Frederick Winslow Taylor

[thanghnvn]

a beautiful question for the reason that the oa, D teach us the new role of "doing", this role different from the role normally realized by " by doing".

"by doing" in this sentence shows the agent which create the action in main clause, not the method by which the action is done.

though we can go to OA, in this problem, by realizing the mechanical error of not paralleling. we should go further to understand the pattern realized by the OA.

[aflaamM589]

Help needed direly experts.
Isn't by Verbing implies that subject is doing the action of verbing, thus productivity in this case?
Is it not applicable here because we have passive voice construction in this sentence?
What am i missing?
Thanks

[RonPurewal]

i see what you mean there, but, it would be impossible to use the "by __ing" construction otherwise.
i.e., if i want to write that "X can be accomplished by doing Y", then ... that's how i have to write it.

you'll see this happen sometimes -- if the strict application of some rule makes certain sentences absolutely impossible to write, then, for those sentences, the rule can be relaxed enough to allow them to be written in some way that makes sense.
(this DOES NOT mean that the rule is relaxed across the board!)

[pappup5]

Hi Ron,

I was trying to understand this question and I referred to the Manhattan Strategy Guide for SC v 8 pg 89 - I wast just wondering whether in light of Q15 , can we say that "by the separation of " is a perfect fit in this case?

I am not trying to question the OA or make any additional versions , but just trying to understand how to identify such cases where we can "relax the rule" where the agent performing the "ing " action , in this case "separating" , is not mentioned in the sentence.

Thanks in advance!

[RonPurewal]

I am not trying to question the OA or make any additional versions

...then why are you (1) making an additional version, AND (2) asking whether it would be better than the official answer?

[pappup5]

Hi Ron,

Actually I just wanted to know this so that I could easily spot cases where we can relax the rule where the agent performing the "ing " action , in this case "separating" , is not mentioned in the sentence.

[aflaamM589]

Hello Ron,
Can AB be crossed out because
i) pronoun one has no antecedent
ii) pronoun one, here, tries to stand for person/people; i read in one of your post in which you mentioned that if pronoun one stands for person/people, 99% of times it is incorrect.(something like that )

Moreover, in ADE it is each motion vs in BC (the motions), in non underline portion it is each motion. IS it some clue?

Frederick Winslow Taylor, a machinist and engineer who worked in the early twentieth century, believed that the productivity of a job could be improved [if one were to separate the components of a task into its individual motions and found the best way to perform each motion, then redesign] the job so that each motion could be done as efficiently as possible.

(A) if one were to separate the components of a task into its individual motions and found the best way to perform each motion, then redesign
(B) if one separated the components of a task into individual motions, found the best way to perform the motions, and then redesigning
(C) if the components of a task were separated into individual motions, finding the best way of performing the motions, and then redesigned
(D) by separating the components of a task into individual motions, finding the best way to perform each motion, and then redesigning
(E) by separating the components of a task into individual motions, finding the best way of performing each motion, then redesign

Thank you very much for your time and guidance.

[RonPurewal]

that kind of "one" doesn't (and can't) have an antecedent. i think this is already addressed on another post from earlier today.

the other stuff is there purely to distract you—this problem is meant to test straightforward parallelism, and paying any significant attention to the other components will be a negative contribution to your overall learning process.
remember! if the problem revolves around something VERY straightforward / black-and-white / fundamental, then everything else in the problem is probably just distractions.

[aflaamM589]

Thank you Ron,
Can you also please comment on the usage of if here?
This question does not talk about if X [then] Y situation, so if in very first place is wrong.
Is this line of reasoning correct?

Moreover, is pronoun error also an issue in A?

(A) if one were to separate the components of a task into its individual motions and found the best way to perform each motion, then redesign

its should be their
Thank you very much.
Have a nice day

[RonPurewal]

Thank you Ron,
Can you also please comment on the usage of if here?
This question does not talk about if X [then] Y situation, so if in very first place is wrong.
Is this line of reasoning correct?

no.
You can improve your score if you study.
...you know this is a valid sentence, right?
the sentence here could work in the same way.

[RonPurewal]

Moreover, is pronoun error also an issue in A?

(A) if one were to separate the components of a task into its individual motions and found the best way to perform each motion, then redesign

its should be their
Thank you very much.
Have a nice day

that's a valid observation, yes (since we're separating the components into motions).

[aflaamM589]

Thank you Ron,
Can you also please comment on the usage of if here?
This question does not talk about if X [then] Y situation, so if in very first place is wrong.
Is this line of reasoning correct?

no.
You can improve your score if you study.
...you know this is a valid sentence, right?
the sentence here could work in the same way.

Thank you very much for your response and valued guidance.

Ron, Isn't your example also not If X,[then] Y situation?
You can improve your score if you study.
if you study, [then]you can improve your score .

[RonPurewal]

oh, sorry, i thought you were saying that the word "then" had to be there.

nah, this sentence makes sense with "if". (if we break these processes down into steps, then we can increase productivity —> this is a perfectly sensible sentence.)

[aflaamM589]

nah, this sentence makes sense with "if". (if we break these processes down into steps, then we can increase productivity —> this is a perfectly sensible sentence.)

yes, i failed to see this. it is making a perfect sense now.
Thank you very much.
Have a nice weekend.

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.