Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action

[ilyana777]

Hello!

It seems that nobody has asked it. I'm very confused about the modifier "especially one that has worked well in the past". Why is there no "to" in front of "one"?

Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially to one that has worked well in the past, ...

Without "to" it looks like (at least, to me) as if "one" modified the gerund "being" or hung in the air without no antecedent at all.

I know that in the correct answer there is no "to", I just can't understand why...

Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

Hello!

It seems that nobody has asked it. I'm very confused about the modifier "especially one that has worked well in the past". Why is there no "to" in front of "one"?

it modifies "course of action", which is, conveniently enough, directly next to it.

[aimhier]

Thanks Ron!

But in some questions wherein I found the "one that" usage redundant are using the same concept which this question used. I mean to say like the above sentence falls apart if we remove "one" from it then can you give me some simple example sentence wherein removing "one" will not affect the sentence.

Thanks!

GeeMate.

hmm?

whether you want "one" is going to depend on exactly what is being compared - i.e., on parallelism.

if you need "one" to maintain this parallelism, then you should include "one". if you don't need it, then don't use it.

--

i don't have any questions immediately available in which you can just remove the "one" and not worry about it.
in fact, it appears that you have some such questions; after all, you said:

But in some questions wherein I found the "one that" usage redundant

...so, apparently, you already have some such questions. do you? if so, i'd love to see which examples you're talking about.

Dear Ron，
you asked for example, here it is, please clarify:
9. Astronomers at the Palomar Observatory have discovered a distant supernova explosion, one that they believe is a type previously unknown to science.
(A) that they believe is
(B) that they believe it to be
(C) they believe that it is of
(D) they believe that is
(E) they believe to be of
Choice E is best. The pronoun that in A and B should be deleted, since the pronoun one is sufficient to introduce the modifier and the sentence is more fluid without that. In B and C, it and that it are intrusive and ungrammatical: the idiom is "believe x to be y." In the context of this sentence, the infini¬tive to be is more appropriate than the limited present-tense is in referring to an event that occurred long ago but has been discovered only recently. Finally, A, B, and D lack o/and so illogically equate this particular explosion with the whole class of explosions to which it belongs: it is not a type but possibly one of a type.

above is a Q from OG 10 and offical answer.
why is "one that' not ok here?

[jyothi h]

Sorry to bring it up again , since it has already been discussed , but I am a little confused on this -

I still am not 100% sure of the exact reason to eliminate option C .
Is it only because , "IT" in option C is ambiguous and it could refer to either "trouble" or "course of action".
or is there something more to it ?

Appreciate if anyone can help clear my doubt.

Thanks,
Jyothi

[RonPurewal]

Sorry to bring it up again , since it has already been discussed , but I am a little confused on this -

I still am not 100% sure of the exact reason to eliminate option C .
Is it only because , "IT" in option C is ambiguous and it could refer to either "trouble" or "course of action".
or is there something more to it ?

there's also the way "miss" and "misinterpret" are arranged.
in this context, we're saying that the executive is likely to do one of 2 things:
1/ miss signs of trouble (meaning that they don't "appear" to the executive at all); or
2/ misinterpret them if they do appear. (note the function of "do" here -- specifically to contrast this situation with the other one, in which the signs don't "appear" to the executive at all.)

in the correct answer, these are arranged logically; in (c), on the other hand, we're accidentally saying that the executive will miss the signs even when (s)he doesn't miss them.

[duyng9989]

Thanks Ron!

But in some questions wherein I found the "one that" usage redundant are using the same concept which this question used. I mean to say like the above sentence falls apart if we remove "one" from it then can you give me some simple example sentence wherein removing "one" will not affect the sentence.

Thanks!

GeeMate.

hmm?

whether you want "one" is going to depend on exactly what is being compared - i.e., on parallelism.

if you need "one" to maintain this parallelism, then you should include "one". if you don't need it, then don't use it.

--

i don't have any questions immediately available in which you can just remove the "one" and not worry about it.
in fact, it appears that you have some such questions; after all, you said:

But in some questions wherein I found the "one that" usage redundant

...so, apparently, you already have some such questions. do you? if so, i'd love to see which examples you're talking about.

Dear Ron，
you asked for example, here it is, please clarify:
9. Astronomers at the Palomar Observatory have discovered a distant supernova explosion, one that they believe is a type previously unknown to science.
(A) that they believe is
(B) that they believe it to be
(C) they believe that it is of
(D) they believe that is
(E) they believe to be of
Choice E is best. The pronoun that in A and B should be deleted, since the pronoun one is sufficient to introduce the modifier and the sentence is more fluid without that. In B and C, it and that it are intrusive and ungrammatical: the idiom is "believe x to be y." In the context of this sentence, the infini¬tive to be is more appropriate than the limited present-tense is in referring to an event that occurred long ago but has been discovered only recently. Finally, A, B, and D lack o/and so illogically equate this particular explosion with the whole class of explosions to which it belongs: it is not a type but possibly one of a type.

above is a Q from OG 10 and offical answer.
why is "one that' not ok here?

I have the same question. "one that" appears in both correct & incorrect answer.

Ron, what is your thought?

[RonPurewal]

there's nothing wrong with "that" in the Palomar problem. it's unnecessary, but unnecessary does not mean wrong.
(a small but non-negligible percentage of the OG answer explanations are, well, wrong -- especially in the earlier editions of the book. this is one of them.)

the two choices with "one that..." both contain other errors that are the actual reasons for eliminating them.

[jyothi h]

Sorry to bring it up again , since it has already been discussed , but I am a little confused on this -

I still am not 100% sure of the exact reason to eliminate option C .
Is it only because , "IT" in option C is ambiguous and it could refer to either "trouble" or "course of action".
or is there something more to it ?

there's also the way "miss" and "misinterpret" are arranged.
in this context, we're saying that the executive is likely to do one of 2 things:
1/ miss signs of trouble (meaning that they don't "appear" to the executive at all); or
2/ misinterpret them if they do appear. (note the function of "do" here -- specifically to contrast this situation with the other one, in which the signs don't "appear" to the executive at all.)

in the correct answer, these are arranged logically; in (c), on the other hand, we're accidentally saying that the executive will miss the signs even when (s)he doesn't miss them.

Oh , I get it now .
Thank you , Ron !

[tim]

:)

[Haibara]

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".

Ron, I've scanned the whole thread, but still don't understand the two errors you cited as reasons to eliminate Choice B.
"Sb makes (the happening of sth) likely/unlikely" is an incorrect expression?
Why can't we use "ones" here after "misinterpreting"? I know "them" is fine, but don't know why "ones" is not acceptable?
Please elaborate on the above two questions.
Thank you very much , Ron.

[RonPurewal]

Ron, I've scanned the whole thread, but still don't understand the two errors you cited as reasons to eliminate Choice B.
"Sb makes (the happening of sth) likely/unlikely" is an incorrect expression?

I don't know what "sb" is. I'm guessing "subject", but ... I'm guessing.
Please don't use abbreviations unless they will reasonably be recognized by ALL educated people (e.g., "e.g."). Thanks.

The meaning of choice B is nonsense. That choice states that an executive (= a person) "can make xxxxx likely".
The sentence is intended to say that a particular orientation or choice of behavior (= excessive commitment) is what makes xxxxx thing likely.

The construction itself is just fine, provided that it actually conveys a reasonable meaning. E.g., The presence of police officers makes street crime much less likely.

[RonPurewal]

Why can't we use "ones" here after "misinterpreting"? I know "them" is fine, but don't know why "ones" is not acceptable?
Please elaborate on the above two questions.
Thank you very much , Ron.

Mutually exclusive.

"Them" = the same things/people that were mentioned previously. I.e., the use of them specifically indicates that you are NOT further narrowing the group.

"Ones" = used ONLY with a modifier/description that further narrows the group.
E.g., All of the houses were damaged, except the ones farthest from the shoreline.
In most of these cases, "those" can be used instead of "the ones", so, honestly, you won't see "the ones" very often. You'll only see it if it would be impossible (or extremely awkward) to use "those""”e.g., Leather jackets are expensive in general, but the most expensive ones can cost as much as new cars.

[Suapplle]

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, in choice A, can "it" serve as a placeholder for an infinitive object? please clarify, thanks a lot.

[RonPurewal]

Hi, Ron, in choice A, can "it" serve as a placeholder for an infinitive object? please clarify, thanks a lot.

Sorry, I have no idea what this means.

This post contains the only situations in which "it" doesn't have to stand for a noun:
post49622.html#p49622

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Hi Ron,

I remember you mentioning that whenever "being" is expressing an IDENTITY or CHARACTERISTIC of something, then we should eliminate it right away. Is that correct?

If so, in option E, isn't "being heavily committed" modifying the executive? Meaning, isn't the executive, that's heavily committed?

Thanks a ton!