Again from the same online test as my previous post. Give it a try before I post the OA.

this sentence is just between A and E, i would choose E be
( After the famine that ravaged Somalia at the end of last century, [url]it[/url] received huge sums of money from the World Bank, using it to get back on the road to recovery)


look at " it" in A, its not clear. "it" in A is famine or somalia?

yes , agreeing to the post. 'it' is singular and therefore can not refer to the 'sums of money' . however 'road of recovery' is wrong idiomatically, that i did not think. So between B and E , E is a better choice but again doesn't E have a misplaced modifier which seems to alter the intent ?

somalia received the huge sums from the world bank before or after the famine hit it ? does E clarify that ?
anyone ?
_________________

What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.

I have a minor doubt.
The second it in E is also ambiguous as it can refer to either Somalia or World Bank

Meaning of the original sentence, Somalia used money from world bank to get back on road to recovery after famine ravaged country last year

Correct sentence in given option should start with Somalia. And that is E

A,B,C are all same. It refers to multiple items. It could be world bank/money/somalia

D. At the end of the last century Somalia used the huge sums of money it received from the World Bank after the famine that ravaged it, to get back on the road to recovery.

Above statement says "Somalia used money from WB it rvd at the end of last year after famine ravaged". which is not true with Original sentence.

Famine ravaged Somalia last year, but not money used last year.

same question, please anyone clarify

In terms of ambiguity of the pronoun, it is an accepted custom that logic is ultimate. Let us now see


Let us try replacing the pronoun with the noun it might refer to


1. after the famine ravaged famine at the end of he last century
2. after the famine ravaged Somalia at the end of he last century
Which is logical? Please ponder.



1. After the famine ravaged Somalia at the end of he last century - looks logical

2. After the famine ravaged World Bank at the end of him last century – If famine hit World Bank, how did it still give Somalia huge sums of money? Secondly, logically we can say a famine hits a country or a region because a famine is characterized by lack of resources such as food, rain, funds etc but it may not hit a society as the World Bank or IMF, which doesn’t need these physical inputs.

Therefore, E rules the roost.
_________________

” I truly believe in online learning, I have been a student in both an Ivy League school (brick and mortar) and in an online setting and I have learned 1,000 times more in an online setting. You do not have anyone there lecturing you and then you do the work, online you are made to do it all yourself. Amazing how different the results are. - Heather(a student)”

Alicia Helle, an online student at the UW, "Obtaining my degree online has been a blessing. With two small children, I am able to work when it is convenient for my family and me. I have nothing but positive comments and experiences from my time at UW-Stout.”

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

Hi All,
After the famine that ravaged Somalia at the end of last century, it received huge sums of money from the World Bank, using it to get back on the road to recovery.



As discussed already, Choices A, B, and C are incorrect because single “it” has been used to refer to plural “sums of money”. Also in Choice B, the phrase “road of recovery” is not idiomatic.

Choice D changes the meaning of the sentence. It now suggests that that Somalia used the huge sums of money given by the World Bank only at the end of last century. The sentence fails to convey the Somalia was actually struck by famine at the end of the last century. It then received the money and used it to recover from the disaster.

Choice E is indeed the correct answer that reads: Somalia used the huge sums of money it received from the World Bank after the famine ravaged it at the end of the last century, to get back on the road to recovery.

There is no ambiguity in the reference of the second “it”, a pronoun. It is only logical for that pronoun to refer to Somalis even if there are a few more nouns before it.

Whenever we use a pronoun in a sentence, we must make sure of two things.
1. A pronoun must agree in number with its antecedent. On this basis only, we eliminated choices A, B, and C because single “it” cannot refer to plural “sums of money”.
2. A pronoun must have a logical antecedent. This rule is at play in the correct answer choice E.

Now, there are three nouns before the second it, famine, World Bank, and Somalia. It will be absolutely illogical to say that famine ravaged famine. So famine is out.

Again, it is illogical to say that the famine ravaged World Bank. Famine is natural disaster that affects a particular geographical area. It cannot affect an organization in particular. Also, if World Bank was struck by famine, why would it give huge sums of money to Somalia? Hence, logically “it” cannot refer to World Bank.

So, we are left only with Somalia which indeed is the only logical antecedent of the second “it” and clearly communicated the meaning of the sentence. There is no pronoun ambiguity in this choice.


1. A pronoun must agree in number with its antecedent.
2. A pronoun must have a logical antecedent.
3. Be wary if the choices that change the meaning of the sentence.

Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Free trial:Click here to start free trial (100+ free practice questions)
Free Session (May 25): : Learn how to master Sentence Correction. Click here to attend.