When the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) pandemic occurred in

I have a doubt here, why do you think that 'it' can refer to threat. Can threat kill somebody, only virus can kill someone.

Nice reprimand I didn't pay attention on this.

I'm not completely sure but I think there is uncertain situation: virus would become (and in this uncertain situation we should use would)
but if this situation became true, the virus will definitely kill vast numbers of patients (and we shouldn't use would to emphasize certainty of this deadly outcome)

I need help to understand that -
Why the Official Answer is right and why not other?[/quote]

A) we can't say on which noun refer first and second it on the virus or threat. Incorrect
B) we can't say on which noun refer first and second it on the virus or threat. Incorrect
C) correct
D) we can't say on which noun refer them because we don't have any subjects in plural (except patients but this create nonsesical meaning). Incorrect
E) we can't say on which noun refer them because we don't have any subjects in plural (except patients but this create nonsesical meaning). Incorrect[/quote]

I have a doubt here, why do you think that 'it' can refer to threat. Can threat kill somebody, only virus can kill someone.[/quote]

Nice reprimand I didn't pay attention on this.

I'm not completely sure but I think there is uncertain situation: virus would become (and in this uncertain situation we should use would)
but if this situation became true, the virus will definitely kill vast numbers of patients (and we shouldn't use would to emphasize certainty of this deadly outcome)[/quote]

Just to add more in option "C", we have "it" in the end, that can also refer to virus/threat. As per your explanation. right. ?

Only reason I am inclined towards C is it is not wordier.

we can infer C like this => that the virus would <become a global threat > and <kill vast numbers of patients who would have no protection against it >

I may be wrong

No, because in variant C we have subject virus which have two verbs: would become and kill
And threat is not subject, so it refer to virus.

IMHO. Maybe I wrong too

Thanks Harley and VikSingh for adding more clarity on this, and after looking at your comments I can see the statement much better than before. Yet I have some confusion regarding the structure and use of “it”, and the reasoning behind the correct answer (C), but not (B).


(C)
Once Outside
Subject Virus (Branch A implicit subject virus and Branch B implicit subject virus)

the virus would
become a global threat
and
kill vast numbers of patients who would have no protection against it

In this case last “it” must be referring to “virus", implicit subject of clause after “and"

(B)
Twice Inside
Subject Virus (Branch A with “virus" and Branch B with “it” )

the virus would
become a global threat
and
it would kill vast numbers of patients with no protection against it.

Now if I go by this, they booth seems grammatically correct, to me, but option C is concise and clear.
To the point that “it” after “and” in this option does not have a clear antecedent is confusing for me. Although if I do not think about the parallel structure then it seems obvious that “it” does not have clear antecedent.

Please can you help me to understand, what I need to consider more to look at this strutter to make the the meaning / answer choice crystal clear.

Thanks
Sandeep

C is correct. "It" refers to the virus.

Pronoun ambiguity is NOT a rule in the GMAT.

I incorrectly chose D, should have checked them refers to not just Virus's! Good Question

Why is (D) incorrect?

Thanks
Sandeep

(D) kill vast numbers of patients who have no protection against them.

'them' does not have an antecedent.

Hi folks,

Before I shoot my question, pl. read the statement that I picked from WSJ...
Spanish police on Monday said a teenager had allegedly killed a teacher in Barcelona with a crossbow and wounded four others - Here "with a crossbow" answers how did the teenager kill the teacher .... by using a crossbow.... hence, here the prepositional phrase "with a crossbow" modifies the verb killed. (or is there a ambiguity in the meaning and it means that teacher who was having a crossbow was killed by a student?)

Now, on similar lines can someone suggest me what is the diff. between:-
1) kill vast numbers of patients who would have no protection against it. and,
2) kill vast numbers of patients with no protection against it.

Is there any meaning diff.? does 2nd statement suggests that how virus is going to kill patients? by using no protection....or does the prepositional phrase modifies people suggesting that they don't have any protection against the virus.

Thanks and Regards,

R

we can eliminate D and E since they use them to refer virus.
with no protection does not modify patients as additional information without a comma in between them and

Noun modifiers are often introduced by Relative Pronouns such as the following:
Which That Who Whose Whom Where When
Such modifiers are called Relative Pronouns. Relative pronouns are subject to several restrictions.
The pronouns who and whom must modify people.
the pronoun which must modify things
that cannot modify people
whose can modify either people or things,
Thus B is wrong since we use with to modify patients.

I read in solution that for A to be correct that needs to be placed before it. since it is not present A is wrong.
Can someone explain that scenario for me and also explain why C is correct?

Mechmeera


Can you pl explain what you were trying to convey in your version? What is the ‘common’ required in between them? Did you mean a ‘comma’? Do u mean there should be a comma before’with”? Can you kindly clarify? I did not also get what you meant by “persons play antecedent role to relative pronouns. (he,she,who,whom,those,them,whose etc)"

As far as I know, common relative pronouns are ---: that, which, who, whom whose etc---;
And then there are personal pronouns of two kinds as follows.1 Subject pronouns (I, You, He, She, It, They, We); they replace the subject in the sentence.; 2. Object pronouns (Me, You, Him, Her, It, Us, Them); they take the place of the object in the sentence.

One reason why the prepositional modifier ‘with no protection against it' gives a feeling that there is a sect of people who exist with protection as compared to people who have no such protection and the SARS will kill that sect of people who have no protection.

I edited the context.
due to typo error I typed common instead of comma.
I hope u understand the text now since I picked the info I wanted to explain from the source.
I hope this helps?

Mechmeera’
I understand the typo error: it is not an issue at all. All I want to know is whether Veritas is saying that B is rejected because it does not have a comma between patients and with; In other words, if choice B were

then, will B be the correct choice? Can you kindly give the verbatim OE of from the source as far as B is concerned.

Hi daagh

Why is option B incorrect. And what's the issue with this construction "patients with no protection against it" .

Thanks in advance.

Regards
SR