SC: the new management stated ...

[imtrying]

The MG discussion did not mention one aspect of the problem.

One incorrect choice says:
its most recent press release, the new management stated that it plans on expanding

The explanation mentioned that 'plan on' is not idiomatic. What about the aspect that a past tense verb (stated) introduces a subordinate clause that is of a present tense?

I think it is acceptable to say 'Newton discovered that the gravity pulls the apple to the ground' because the subordinate clause states a theory, a law or a universally accepted fact. But I think it is usually wrong for other situations, such as in the above example. Am I correct?

[esledge]

Please post the text of the entire question and all 5 choices. For a quick reminder of posting guidelines, please see the "sticky" in this folder. Thanks!

[GUEST]

In their most recent press release, the new management stated that they plan to expand into the global software market via a series of acquisitions in Asia and Latin America.

A their most recent press release, the new management stated that they plan to expand
B its most recent press release, the new management stated that they plan to expand
C its most recent press release, the new management stated that it plans on expanding
D its most recent press release, the new management stated an intention to expand
E its most recent press release, the new management stated their intention to expand

Can someone give a stronger reason why the answer is D and not C? Is it some Subjunctive Mood issue? I would accept the MGMAT explanation that the correct idiom is "to plan to" but I can't find confirmation in the SC Strategy Guide.

[JonathanSchneider]

For the original poster:
We can in fact switch from the past to the present tense here. This is because we are told "In its most recent press release..." This opening indicates that the "planning" is current. As long as you have a reason to switch tenses, go for it. You only have to keep things parallel when you don't have an explicit reason to switch!

As to the most recent question, yes, "an intention to expand" is idiomatic, while "plan on expanding" is not. Intentions usually take the infinitive form.

[malikrulzz]

For the original poster:
We can in fact switch from the past to the present tense here. This is because we are told "In its most recent press release..." This opening indicates that the "planning" is current. As long as you have a reason to switch tenses, go for it. You only have to keep things parallel when you don't have an explicit reason to switch!

As to the most recent question, yes, "an intention to expand" is idiomatic, while "plan on expanding" is not. Intentions usually take the infinitive form.

I agree with the logic of moving from past to present but

The correct idiom is "intention of" or "intend to"
"plan on expanding" is less preferable but not incorrect when compared with "plan to expand"

[RonPurewal]

almost all of our idioms are taken from official problems, so, if we declare that "plan on expanding" is wrong, we probably have this fact on official authority.

"plan on VERBing", by the way, is spoken language. it's substandard written language, and should be considered incorrect; the correct form is "plan to VERB".

[APARIDA]

Does not "D" (OA) change the original meaning?

Original sentence:

In their most recent press release, the new management stated that they plan to expand........

Where as, D states:

"its most recent press release, the new management stated an intention to expand".

The original sentence explicitly mentions that it's management's plan to expand but option D just mentions about an intention, which could be yours, mine or the management's..

Please clarify.

[StaceyKoprince]

First, if management states the intention to do something, then you can assume management is the one planning to do it. If management is stating someone else's intention to do something, the sentence would have to specify that before you'd assume that it was a possibility. I know it's tempting to nit-pick this stuff to death (I do it too!) but try to resist the temptation. :)

Second, meaning is secondary to grammar. Always deal with grammar first. I have seen official questions in which I feel I can argue that the original meaning has changed slightly in the correct answer - but I still can't argue with the correct answer because the other four have grammar errors and the correct one doesn't. Ultimately, this is a test of grammar.

The "meaning" rule does not mean that the real test will NEVER change the meaning of the original even a tiny bit. It just means that, if you have two grammatically correct answer choices, then you choose the one that best reflects the original meaning. (And when they do offer a change in meaning in a circumstance such as what I just described, the change in meaning is much larger than the one mentioned here.)

[dilip.shahan]

the company's new management stated a plan for expansion of its operations

I am bit confused with the answer. I felt that all are wrong. Here what does the possessive pronoun "its" refer to. "its" is there in all 4 options.

[jnelson0612]

the company's new management stated a plan for expansion of its operations

I am bit confused with the answer. I felt that all are wrong. Here what does the possessive pronoun "its" refer to. "its" is there in all 4 options.

I must be missing something, because I do not see what you are quoting anywhere in the problem or the answers above, and I have looked and looked at it. Please let me know where you found that wording.

[sinha_saharsh]

Hi Jnelson,

The poster above you is probably referring to this question. I got this question in my CAT today. Even i was a bit thrown off by the "its". Could any of the experts please clarify. I am not sure what is the antecedent of the "its" here.
Thank you!

In their latest press release, the company's new management stated a plan for expansion of its operations into the global software market via a series of acquisitions in Asia and Latin America.

1.the company's new management stated a plan for expansion of its operations

2.the new company's management stated that they planned on expanding its operations

3.the company's new managers stated their plan to expand its operations

4.the new company managers stated their plan for its operations, expanding

5.the company's new management stated that they planned to expand its operations

[tim]

company's

[joshuahulse]

I thought "it" (or it's) could not refer back to a noun that was locked into a possessive phrase?

[tim]

"it" cannot, but "its" can, as "its" is a possessive pronoun. "it's" is irrelevant in this context, because as a contraction it actually is a subject and verb together. I suspect that when you wrote "it's", you probably meant "its", right?

[SunitA759]

Hi,

Sorry to open this thread again.

My doubt is that Does 'management' always takes singular noun OR can it be a collective noun too.

If it can be a collective noun, why can't we assume here that 'management' used in the original sentence is a plural noun and 'their' refers to 'management.

Please help me out on this confusion.