When working with overseas clients

[jlucero]

Is A wrong here only because of the use of the article "an" or because of the misplaced "For the global manager" .Doesn't it changes the meaning to an invalid comparison of understanding.... to Grasping.... business manager giving the meaning that only grasping is for the business manager and not understanding.

Please clarify!

That's correct. Placing the modifier "for..." at the end of the second comparison makes it sound like we are comparing "an understanding of cultural norms" vs "grasping the pivotal business issues for the global manager"

[arnabgangully]

Hi All,

I have a more generic question.

1.May i assume that GMAT prefers subject first and then the Modifier.

OR

2.Modifier first and then the subject.

I am modyfying the options in question just to learn the concept.

1. for managers working with the overseas clients,understanding cultural norms is at least as important as grasping the pivotal business issues.

2.When working with the overseas clients,understanding cultural norms is at least as important as grasping the pivotal business issue for managers.

Which is better Why ?

[RonPurewal]

Hi All,

I have a more generic question.

1.May i assume that GMAT prefers subject first and then the Modifier.

OR

2.Modifier first and then the subject.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking here.

If this is meant as a general question, then there's no general answer. The English language has lots of different kinds of modifiers, not all of which are placed in the same way.

[RonPurewal]

1. for managers working with the overseas clients,understanding cultural norms is at least as important as grasping the pivotal business issues.

This sentence is fine.

2.When working with the overseas clients,understanding cultural norms is at least as important as grasping the pivotal business issue for managers.

"When working..." has to describe the noun that comes after it. So, this version is nonsense, because it suggests that "understanding cultural norms" is a person who can work with overseas clients.

Like this:
Coming home from school, the wind blew me off my bike.
--> Nonsense, unless the wind goes to school.

Coming home from school, I was blown off my bike by the wind.
--> Better.

[angierch]

Hi Ron,

In the sentence: "When in England, I often drive on the wrong side of the road." Do we need to have a noun modifier (in this case "I") after the comma?

Same question for this sentence: "When I drive in England, I forget to stay on the left side of the road."

Thank you in advance,
Angelica

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

In the sentence: "When in England, I often drive on the wrong side of the road." Do we need to have a noun modifier (in this case "I") after the comma?

Same question for this sentence: "When I drive in England, I forget to stay on the left side of the road."

Thank you in advance,
Angelica

I don't understand the question.

In both of these sentences, "I do xxxx thing" is the main sentence, and "I" is the subject of the main sentence! In both cases, the thing before the comma is a modifier.

[Haibara]

Ron, is B wrong also for the following reason?

B. When they work with overseas clients, understanding cultural norms is at least of equal importance to the global manager as grasping the pivotal business issues.

Here, there's only one "as" in Choice B. In other words, there's no phrase "as....as....", so the "as" here must be taken as a preposition, which can only mean "function" or "equation", but not "similar to". So B doesn't make sense, B is incorrect.

Is my thinking correct?
Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

Yeah, you can't write "X is of equal importance as Y" or "X is equally important as Y".
With "equal(ly)", there's no way to structure the sentence like that (or, at least, no way I can think of right now). You'd have to write one of the following instead:
X and Y are of equal importance
X and Y are equally important

It's possible to write X is equal to Y, of course, but that's a totally different meaning.

[Haibara]

Thanks Ron ！

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[Tadashi]

Hi Ron,

If I change E into "Global managers working with overseas clients find an understanding of cultural norms to be as important as an grasping the pivotal business issues."

Will it work?

some questions about the verb "find".

I find your lack of faith disturbing. ----Darth Vader in movie Star Wars.
I find your lack of faith to be disturbing. -----revised by me.

Both sentences are correct in grammar. BUT the latter is inferior because it changes the intended meaning. (to be here conveys a idea of future. however, we are talking about sth. happening in the current situation. correct me if i am wrong.)

Thanks,
Tadashi

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

If I change E into "Global managers working with overseas clients find an understanding of cultural norms to be as important as an grasping the pivotal business issues."

Will it work?

some questions about the verb "find".

I find your lack of faith disturbing. ----Darth Vader in movie Star Wars.
I find your lack of faith to be disturbing. -----revised by me.

Both sentences are correct in grammar. BUT the latter is inferior because it changes the intended meaning. (to be here conveys a idea of future. however, we are talking about sth. happening in the current situation. correct me if i am wrong.)

Thanks,
Tadashi

Nah. Both of your sentences mean the same thing.

The "to be" is a tool for clarification. It's used mostly when the sentence would be ambiguous"”or just hard to read"”without it.

[Tadashi]

Well...Thank you first.
Still can't accept the fact that "I find your lack of faith disturbing. " equals "I find your lack of faith to be disturbing."...ehh..
Maybe I need some time..
I shall learn it..quite weird though.

Er,do you mean that "Global managers working with overseas clients find an understanding of cultural norms to be as important as an grasping the pivotal business issues." is correct?
Does the "to be" in my revised version seem to be redundant ?

Please shed more light.
DOMO ARIGATO,
Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

Well...Thank you first.
Still can't accept the fact that "I find your lack of faith disturbing. " equals "I find your lack of faith to be disturbing."...ehh..
Maybe I need some time..
I shall learn it..quite weird though.

What is so "weird"?

There are tons of constructions that have more than one shape.
E.g., If x, (then) y
(Both) x and y
(Either) x or y

Sometimes there are rhetorical differences. (E.g., "both x and y" is more emphatic than just "x and y".) Sometimes, there's no difference at all. ("If x, y" and "if x, then y" are absolutely identical in meaning.)

[RonPurewal]

In fact, the "to be" might even be necessary, if the sentence is ambiguous without it.
E.g.,
I have found dairy products as high in protein as meat.
This sentence is ambiguous. It's impossible to tell whether the meaning is...
1/
I have found dairy products that are as high in protein as meat. (<"” just some dairy products, not all.)
...or...
2/
I have found dairy products to be as high in protein as meat. (<"” I have found that this is true of all dairy products.)