Since 1986 when the Department of Labor began to allow inves

[nitin.manoharan]

Hi,
Thanks for your view on this.

Thanks,
Nitin

[RonPurewal]

Hi,
Thanks for your view on this.

Thanks,
Nitin

sure.

[dubinskysoares]

C is using the subjunctive construction intended for use in one type of situation: the desire of a person or entity for another person or entity to do something. That is not the intention of this sentence - it is not a desire on the part of DOL that officers be allowed to do something. Rather, DOL allowed the officers to do something.

Stacy
I face a lot of problem choosing whether a particular construct requires subjunctive form.
In the case above, even though I found D better, but I chose C because it was subjunctive form and I could see a "permission"

Could you please explain when to choose subjunctive form
I generally just look at keywords such as "require, demand,order,hope" and jump to the form

[RonPurewal]

C is using the subjunctive construction intended for use in one type of situation: the desire of a person or entity for another person or entity to do something. That is not the intention of this sentence - it is not a desire on the part of DOL that officers be allowed to do something. Rather, DOL allowed the officers to do something.

Stacy
I face a lot of problem choosing whether a particular construct requires subjunctive form.
In the case above, even though I found D better, but I chose C because it was subjunctive form and I could see a "permission"

Could you please explain when to choose subjunctive form
I generally just look at keywords such as "require, demand,order,hope" and jump to the form

this kind of subjunctive form is generally restricted to the following three types of situations:
1) demands or orders (the boss demanded that his employees be at work by 8:00 am);
2) requests (the boss requested that we be early for tomorrow's meeting);
3) statements of importance (it is important that we be early for tomorrow's meeting)

it's interesting that you included "hope" and "permission" in your list, because these things do not take subjunctive forms in english.
you don't happen to be a native speaker of spanish, do you? if you are, then these inclusions would make much more sense, because they correspond to structures that do take the corresponding subjunctive forms in spanish. if you aren't, where did you get the idea that hope and permission are situations that require the subjunctive?

[sissizhx]

Why is E wrong ??

* the present perfect is the ONLY tense that you're allowed to use in a clause modified by since...
i.e., because you have since 1986..., the main verb of the sentence must be in the present perfect.
(e) uses the past tense, so it's wrong.

Hello Ron,
I thought "begin" an instant verb (not sth. like "run"), could we use present perfect tense?
Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

Why is E wrong ??

* the present perfect is the ONLY tense that you're allowed to use in a clause modified by since...
i.e., because you have since 1986..., the main verb of the sentence must be in the present perfect.
(e) uses the past tense, so it's wrong.

Hello Ron,
I thought "begin" an instant verb (not sth. like "run"), could we use present perfect tense?
Thanks.

no other tense (except the present perfect) is allowed with "since".

also note that what you're calling "instant verbs" can perfectly well be used in the present perfect tense, as long as they are somehow relevant to the present.
e.g., individuals who have graduated from an accredited college are welcome to apply for the fellowship is correct, even though "graduated" is what you're calling an instant verb, because the state of having graduated is relevant to today's situation.

[chembeti_aravind]

Why is E wrong ??

* it's unidiomatic to use "allow" with the subjunctive.
the correct usage is "allow NOUN to be ..."
it's incorrect to say "allow that NOUN be ..."

* the present perfect is the ONLY tense that you're allowed to use in a clause modified by since...
i.e., because you have since 1986..., the main verb of the sentence must be in the present perfect.
(e) uses the past tense, so it's wrong.

Ron,
I agree with your point only in one occasion.
The word 'since' can be used to mean either of the following:
- to mark the beginning of a period
- to indicate a cause in a cause-and-effect situation.

Now I think, your explanation is applicable only to the first situation. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[RonPurewal]

Ron,
I agree with your point only in one occasion.
The word 'since' can be used to mean either of the following:
- to mark the beginning of a period
- to indicate a cause in a cause-and-effect situation.

Now I think, your explanation is applicable only to the first situation. Please correct me if I am wrong.

that's right, i was only talking about the temporal version of "since". the cause/effect version is an entirely different animal (with no direct relationship to verb tense, since it's not a time relationship).

[sidhant]

Hi,

Can you please tell me whats wrong with option B?

thanks

[RonPurewal]

Hi,

Can you please tell me whats wrong with option B?

thanks

"since 1986" is a continuous interval of time from 1986 up to the present, so the present perfect form ("have begun") is more appropriate.
to make the regular past tense ("began") correct, this action would have to be pinned down to some precise point in the past.

[Levent-g]

Hi MGMAT-Team,

in answer choices C and D the pronoun THEY refers to a prepositional phrase of the noun phrase "fees of investment officers". Ron stated that if we can find a noun which fits it should be ok.

1) How about A, B and E. Why can't we just pick the same word there as technically it is included in the sentence. Does this rule doesn't apply for possessives?

2) In case an answer choice would contain only the noun investment officers without embedded in a prep. phrase and would not contain any other error, would this choice be better or would this not matter.

Thanks in advance

Levent

[RonPurewal]

Hi MGMAT-Team,

in answer choices C and D the pronoun THEY refers to a prepositional phrase of the noun phrase "fees of investment officers". Ron stated that if we can find a noun which fits it should be ok.

1) How about A, B and E. Why can't we just pick the same word there as technically it is included in the sentence. Does this rule doesn't apply for possessives?

Possessives are adjectives, not nouns.
big clothes
small clothes
old clothes
new clothes
stylish clothes
Ron's clothes
That's all the understanding you need here -- you don't need some needlessly complicated rule about possessives in particular.

2) In case an answer choice would contain only the noun investment officers without embedded in a prep. phrase and would not contain any other error, would this choice be better or would this not matter.

I don't understand the question here. If possible, please phrase the question more specifically, perhaps with examples. Thanks.

[Levent-g]

Thank you Ron!

Regarding the second part, the question is wether the word "investment officers" would be a better antecedent for the pronoun "they", if not embedded in a prepositional phrase. I mean is the first example better that the second?

1) ...that investment officers do receive fees based on how the funds they manage...
2) ...that fees of investment officers to be based on how the funds they manage...

Hope this makes it clear.

[RonPurewal]

They're both ok. No need to overcomplicate the issue by thinking about which is "better".

[Levent-g]

Many Thanks