No matter how patiently they explain their reasons for confiscating

D.

reason i could think:

the clause No matter ---- items, modifies custom inspectors rather than travellers in the context of the sentence. So the comma should be followed immediately by custom inspectors.


answer ??

D
modifier should be customs inspectors and not travelers...so only D,E remain..
D is better written than E

Choices A,B,C, can be eliminated immediately because of the use of the antecedent "they," which appears before the comma. In this sentence, "they" is modifying "customs inspectors" not travelers.

Reread it like this: "No matter how patiently [TRAVELERS] explain their reasons for confiscating certain items, TRAVELERS often treat customs inspectors like wanton poachers rather than government employees." Does that make sense? NO. Travelers aren’t confiscating items from themselves.

Does this make sense: "No matter how patiently [CUSTOMS INSPECTORS] explain their reasons for confiscating certain items, [THEY] are often treated… wanton poachers rather than government employees."

This makes sense also, and ultimately this construction is correct: "No matter how patiently [THEY] explain their reasons for confiscating certain items, [CUSTOMS INSPECTORS] are often treated… wanton poachers rather than government employees."

There really isn’t a way for either of choices A, B, or C to be correct. (Antecedents can be deadly.)

Choices D and E are the only viable options. Honestly, both D and E are wrong to me. But D has the least sever problem, thus it is ultimately the answer. The biggest problem with D is the use of the word “were.” Doesn’t the use of this word here break the tense rule? “… Inspectors ARE often treated by travelers as if they WERE...” This construction is problematic! “Were” seems to change the tense of the sentence here, doesn’t it?

The glaring problem with E, though, makes it incorrect. Choice E leaves out the final “like” which is necessary to completely relate the idiom – not like X…. but [like] Y. That really is the only thing wrong with choice E.

I don’t agree with the argument that treated like is idiomatically incorrect. I’d like to add some complex deep reason for why I disagree with this argument, but I don’t have one. My reasoning is really quite simple. The phrase “treated like” is used regularly by writers for New York Times, as well the Associated Press. I know we don’t all always agree with the political ideals the Times seems to represent, but I think it goes without saying that the best writers in the world write for that paper; they don’t make mistakes. Ever. Hence, my rule of thumb regarding grammar: If it’s in the Times it’s right… that’s it.

Isn't "They" in D ambiguous? It can refer to both travelers and custom officers.

Hi,

No matter how patiently they explain their reasons for confiscating certain items, customs inspectors are often treated by travelers as if they were wanton poachers rather than government employees...

If you look at the onon-underlined portion, 'they' has been used and it also refers to custom officers....
Custom officers is the SUBJECT and all subject pronoun will refer to the SUBJECT noun..
they is also used as subject pronoun here in underlined portion

modifier is modifying customer officer rather than travelers

Hmm...Really you must know the meaning of confiscating Or you must know the work of customs inspectors. otherwise modifying is difficult.

As i read with an absent mind, i was down to 2 (c and d) and eliminated d just because it was passive!!.

SAD LIFE

Who confiscates the items ? Is it the travelers or the customs inspectors ? Quite clearly customs inspectors confiscate items. Hence A, B and C are OUT.
E is not parallel as it says: treated not like 'X' buy 'Y' whereas it should say: treated not like 'X' but like[u][/u] 'Y'
Hence 'D' is the correct answer.

D is the correct answer here; however, I still think that it is a bit ambiguous. The word 'they' could refer back to customs inspectors as well as travelers.

Could someone clarify how can we definitely say that the word 'they' is not referring back to travelers?

Hi davidbeckham, indeed the pronoun they is technically ambiguous here, since they has two eligible antecedents: customs inspectors and travelers.

In case of pronoun ambiguity, application of following rule often comes in handy:

Pronoun-subject in one clause can be presumed to refer to noun-subject of another clause.

The two clauses here are:

i) customs inspectors are often treated by travelers - customs inspectors is the noun-subject

ii) as if they were wanton poachers rather than government employees - they is the pronoun-subject

So, they refers to customs inspectors.

Having said that, it's worth noting that pronoun ambiguity should not be the first/only reason to eliminate an answer choice.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses Pronoun ambiguity, its application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.

This question is based on Modifiers and Idiomatic Usage.

The sentence begins with a modifier - No matter how patiently they explain their reasons for confiscating certain items. The appropriate subject of this modifier is “customs inspectors”. “Travelers” would not patiently explain their reasons for confiscating items.

In Options A, B, and C, there is a modifier error as the noun ‘travelers’ is placed immediately after the modifier. So, these options can be eliminated.

Option E lacks parallelism. The correlative conjunctions - not-but – should each be followed by a similar word. In this option ‘not’ is followed by the conjunction ‘like’, which should be repeated after the conjunction ‘but’ to maintain parallelism. Since the conjunction is missing after the second conjunction, Option E can be eliminated.

The phrase “treated by travelers as if they were wanton poachers” is in the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood is used to convey something that is unreal or improbable. The customs inspectors are not actually wanton poachers but the travelers treat them as if they were. The verb ‘were’ is in the subjunctive form in this sentence. Therefore, D is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.

The first thing which instantly jumps from question STEM is the comparison b/w the treatment. Therefore, like is out as it can only be used to compare noun NOT verbs.

A & E are out

Next is the use of pronouns "they" and "their", we need to make sure there is no ambiguity related to these pronouns.

Option B, does not resolve the ambiguity, also if you notice travelers is a closer noun than customs inspectors, again a red flag.

Option C, though the ambiguity is sort of resolved, but there is a new problem -- NOT "not government employees but wanton poachers" weird isn't it!!

Option D, first, custom inspectors is closer to they and their pronouns, second, the use of "they" in this option resolves the ambiguity as well.

Therefore, D is the correct option.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.