Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action

[RonPurewal]

Isn't "Being heavily committed to a course of action,....,an executive is likely to miss...." the correct usage?
I thought the phrase "Being heavily committed to a course of action.." should modify ""executives" but that does not seem to be the case with E.
Please explain.

Thanks.

ooooohhh ok

no, that's an incorrect analysis. in this case, "being" isn't a modifier; it's a gerund (= NOUN type -ing form).
in fact, "being committed" is the subject of this sentence!

i.e., here "being heavily committed"
is like
Swimming is fun.
that's a complete sentence -- "swimming" is a noun (gerund). since it's a noun, it's not modifying anything.

in fact, i don't think you're EVER going to see "being X" as a modifier, because, in any such case, you could simply eliminate "being" to produce a more concise sentence.
i.e.,
Being tired from the party, I fell asleep in less than one minute --> not ok
Tired from the party, I fell asleep in less than one minute --> ok

[dechu]

Dear Ron/ stacey,

I am confused by "placeholder it" in manhattan gmat strategy page 231.
I choose the answer A. because " heavy commitment ...., makes it likely to miss ...." as following the placeholder IT.
I think it is correct , because "IT" postpones infinitive (to miss) .

Any way, if answer A is wrong, is the following correct?
" heavy commitment makes it likely for executive to miss or ...."
it can refer to " to miss or ...."

I am confused, please help me.

in addition, in answer E, is it correct to say:
" heavily committed to a ...." I eliminate the word "being"? if No , could you explain why?

Thanks in advance

I have the same doubts about the "placeholder it", could Ron/Stacey shed some light on this?

[mschwrtz]

OK, let's look at A and see how you might understand the it as a placeholder for an infinitive subject or object:

Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

To streamline:

Commitment makes it likely to miss signs of trouble.

But to miss signs of trouble doesn't make sense as a subject here. You can see this by putting that infinitive in the subject spot:

To miss signs of trouble...what?...is likely? But that's not what the original sentence means.

And to miss signs of trouble doesn't work as an object either. What would you need to make it an object? Well, you would need for someone to be likely to miss signs. The following sentence is awkward, but grammatically defensible:

Commitment makes it likely for an executive to miss signs of trouble.

Much more important, because more accessible by the good test-taker, in the whole sentence C,

Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

the second it would be assumed to have the same antecedent as the first it, namely executive.

[style.rohit007]

Ron..can u plz explain how the following part is correct.??

"especially one that has worked well in the past"

if the strategy worked well in the past then how can we use present perfect "Has worked" ??

[xyin]

"especially one that has worked well in the past"

Does anyone fell the usage of one is weird?
"One" is supposed to stand for people, and we must use "who" rather than "that" to modify people.

Can anyone help me make it clear? Thanks!

[messi10]

style.rohit007,

The use of Present perfect is ok because its effect is still true today. The strategy has worked well in the past and is still being used today.

xyin,

The use of "one" is not restricted to people only.

e.g. David took Mary to a flower shop and asked her to pick one.

Regards

Sunil

[RonPurewal]

Ron..can u plz explain how the following part is correct.??

"especially one that has worked well in the past"

if the strategy worked well in the past then how can we use present perfect "Has worked" ??

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, 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.

[RonPurewal]

"especially one that has worked well in the past"

Does anyone fell the usage of one is weird?
"One" is supposed to stand for people, and we must use "who" rather than "that" to modify people.

Can anyone help me make it clear? Thanks!

this is not necessarily true.
it's true that "one" can stand for "an arbitrary person", but "one" can also stand for "a particular instance of an aforementioned item/event/whatever".

in fact, i just used "one" in this sense in my previous post:

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.

in this example, "one" stands for "a past action".

in the problem in this thread, "one" stands for "a course of action".

--

Sunil:

e.g. David took Mary to a flower shop and asked her to pick one.

nope -- you can't use "one" in this way unless the sentence actually mentions the thing that you are talking about.
in this context, "one" seems to mean one flower, or perhaps one bouquet of flowers -- but the sentence doesn't say either "flower(s)" or "bouquet(s) of flowers", so it's incorrect.
if you interpret this sentence literally, then david is asking mary to pick an entire flower shop (because that's the only noun in the sentence to which "one" can refer).

[llzzyy234]

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.

[RonPurewal]

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.

[joindk]

Can someone please explain why A and B are wrong ?

sure

here you go:

A. Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

* "heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action" is awkward and difficult to read. (you may have to be a native speaker to pick up on this, though)

much more importantly:
* makes it likely to miss...
this doesn't work.
technically, this would mean that "it" - an unspecified entity - is likely to miss the signs.
if you use the "it is ADJ..." construction, and the verb has a specific subject, you MUST include that subject in the construction. it is likely that the executive will miss...

B. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action ... makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.

i've eliminated the modifier in this sentence, simplifying its structure a bit.

once that modifier is eliminated, notice that you have a sentence that says that the executive him/herself makes missing the signs likely.

"misinterpreting ones" is also wrong. this should be "them", not "ones".

HI Ron,

You discarded the option A because 'it' is not clear. But, can I say this 'it' is placeholder 'it'? to push the 'to-phrase' back?

The first 'it' ( "especially if it...") could be ambiguous, referring either to commitment or to course of action. But, the 'it' in "it is likely to.." looks like a placeholder 'it'

Also, other pronouns - them, they - clearly refer to signs.

So, is A out just because of first 'it' ( and the opening clause being wordy) or am I wrong in assuming second 'it' as placeholder?

Thanks

[joindk]

I missed the post by 'mschwrtz' and asked about 'placeholder it'

But, I somehow still feel the 'it' is something like: It is raining, or It is a nice day today.

Please enlighten!

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

I missed the post by 'mschwrtz' and asked about 'placeholder it'

But, I somehow still feel the 'it' is something like: It is raining, or It is a nice day today.

Please enlighten!

Thanks

that type of "it" ...

... 1/ is restricted to descriptions of weather/environmental conditions and can't really be generalized beyond those kinds of things,

and

... 2/ has no precedent in official sc problems.
this latter fact is significant for two different reasons: (a) we don't have any idea where gmac stands on this issue, and (b) having never appeared in any of the hundreds and hundreds of official sc problems, this kind of thing is almost certainly not going to show up on test day.

[nowwithgmat]

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.

Hello instructor

E. 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.

If we omit "being" then we have-
"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."

And as "heavily committed to a course of action" is a modifier and it must modify somebody that must be placed after this modifier. In option E lacks this. Specially "heavily committed to a course of action" modify the "Executives" i.e. is absent in option E.

Correct me if I wrong.

[RonPurewal]

If we omit "being" then we have-

hmm?

perhaps the previous post wasn't clear: you CAN'T omit "being" here. "being" is actually the subject of the sentence!

Swimming is fun.
Running 10 miles a day is tiring.
Being heavily committed to a course of action can cause an executive to make mistakes.
--> all of these work the same way