In most social systems, minority groups eventually demand from the

Dear rajatr,
I'm happy to help with this. This is a good question.

The prompt is a pronoun trainwreck ---- "that they have" --- the pronoun "they" is supposed to refer to the "minority groups", but it's closer to "the people in power" --- tension between what the grammar implies and what the intended meaning is. (A) is out.

The correct idiom is "right to practice" --- the wording "right of practicing" is awkward and unidiomatic --- (B) & (D) are out.

Since the whole end of the sentence, after the underlined phrase, describes modifies the right for which the minorities are asking, it is more elegant to have the "from" preposition right after the verb, rather than have it come between the "right" and the clause that modifiers this noun. (C) has this problem, and (C) is just a flaccid wordy nightmare of an answer.

(E) is sleek and elegant. It is grammatically correct, and finds a remarkably direct and concise way to express the idea. (E) is by far the best answer here.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

In most social systems, minority groups eventually demand from the people in power that they have the right to practice their particular religion without restriction.

A.from the people in power that they have the right to practice

B.that the people in power give them the right of practicing

C.to have the right, from the ones in power, to practice

D.the right, from those in power, of practicing

E.from those in power the right to practice

IMO: E

In most social systems, minority groups eventually demand from the people in power that they have the right to practice their particular religion without restriction.

A.from the people in power that they have the right to practice
Wrong. "They" is not clear, we may understand that "they" is "the people"

B.that the people in power give them the right of practicing
Wrong. "the right of practicing" is not good, it should be "the right to practice"

C.to have the right, from the ones in power, to practice
Wrong. "demand to have" is incorrect idiom.

D.the right, from those in power, of practicing
Wrong. "of practicing" is wrong.

E.from those in power the right to practice
I picked E because E is the best, however I'm not convinced by E because the right idiom should be "demand something from someone". But in this question the idiom is "demand from someone something".

Experts please help.

Dear pqhai,
In this idiom, use of the preposition "from" is crucial to the idiom --- for example, the idiom would be incorrectly constructed with another preposition. But word order is not crucial. The placement of a prepositional phrase in a sentence often has some wiggle room. Admittedly, it might sound awkward if the order were just changed for no reason whatsoever (e.g. "The child demands from his mother attention." Hmmm. Awkward.) Here, though, we have a compelling reason. The structure "demand something from someone" would be inappropriate because the "something" is a noun, the right, with a long modifier, to practice their particular religion without restriction. It would make no sense to have the structure

demand something [long long long long modifier] from someone

This sentence, simply in moving the preposition for a good reason (a perfectly legal move), works around this problem:

demand from someone something [long long long long modifier]

This is an elegant solution.

Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike,

'Those' is a demonstrative pronoun. So doesn't it have to have an antecedent? I ruled out E because of the usage of 'those'. It cannot refer back to either the 'social systems' or the 'minority groups'.

My inability to judge on issues like these always costs me a lot. I'm never able to figure out there subtleties in the GMAT SC questions, because of which i'm always struggling to get questions right.
Please advise.

Dear gauravkaushik8591,
My friend, I am happy to respond. With all due respect, your thinking is too black & white. Of course demonstrative pronouns have antecedents. ALL pronouns have antecedents: otherwise, we wouldn't know to what they refer!! Here's the important distinction: demonstrative pronouns have a different relationship with their antecedents than do personal pronouns.
Personal pronouns are ABSOLUTE IDENTICAL to their antecedents. The "him" or "her" or "it" or "them" later in a sentence must be the identical self-same person or group mentioned earlier in the sentence.
Demonstrative pronouns allow for more flexibility, and can accommodate what we might call a relationship by analogy. A demonstrative pronoun does not have to refer to the exact same thing: it could refer to a different item or set with an analogous role to one mentioned earlier in the sentence.
Thus, this sentence is logically incorrect:
The fence around my house is higher than it is around Kevin's house.
That sentence is a trainwreck. Obviously, the same fence is not around both my house and Kevin's house. We are obviously trying to compare two different fences, but the personal pronoun forces us to identify the second fence with the first: grammar in full defiance of logic! This is precisely why we need a demonstrative pronoun:
The fence around my house is higher than that around Kevin's house.
That's perfectly correct. The pronoun "that" has an antecedent in the word "fence." The word "that" refers to a fence, but not the SAME fence. It refers to another fence, a second fence, the one that is in the analogous position around Kevin's house. All this allows for the proper comparison of two different fences.

Now, here is (E), the OA of this sentence:
In most social systems, minority groups eventually demand from those in power the right to practice their particular religion without restriction.
This one is very tricky. The sentence mentions "minority groups" in a "social system" -- by implication, we are talking about "some people in a social system." The "those" curiously has "minority groups" as an antecedent, not referring to those exact people, but referring by analogy to other people in the same social system, namely, those people in the same social system that wield power. Think about it: for any given minority group, we would know exactly to whom the "those" refers, even though these exact people have not been mentioned explicitly at all. That is the magic of demonstrative pronouns.

The pronoun-antecedent relationship for personal pronouns is extremely clear and easy to understand. It's much more subtle for demonstrative pronouns, and involves sophisticated analogical thinking. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that the relationship personal pronouns have with their antecedents is the only relationship that any pronoun can have with its antecedent. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that grammar is black & white like mathematics: it's much more subtle, involving the full capacities of the human mind for implication, imagination, and creativity. If a human being can think an idea, then there's a way to say it in a grammatically correct manner: that's how much grammar has to encompass.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike I thought " Demand" always requires a subjunctive hence I chose B.Does that mean that " Demand " like many other verbs can take both the infinitive and subjunctive.Does " Demand " fall in the same category as "ask" , " Beg", "Require", urge etc etc , these can take both the subjunctive and the infinitive. Can you assist? Thanks.

Dear qlx,
I'm happy to respond. The verb "demand" can take a "that" clause in the subjunctive. It can not take the infinitive, and that is not the case in this sentence. In addition to more exotic structures, the verb "demand" can have just an ordinary noun as its direct object.
They demand food.
They demand equal pay for equal work.
They demand a free hour of service.

Here's the OA of this particular sentence:
In most social systems, minority groups eventually demand from those in power the right to practice their particular religion without restriction.
What do the minority groups demand? "the right" (a simple noun)
What right? "the right to practice their particular religion without restriction"
The direct object of the verb "demand" is just the ordinary noun "the right." Here, the infinitive phrase is acting as a noun modifier: it is tell us which right, what kind of right, has been demanded. That's a little exotic. Only a few nouns (right, power, capacity, ability, etc.) idiomatically take the infinitive as a modifier. The idiom involving the infinitive attaches it to the noun, not to the verb. This is very important to understand.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Dear Mike,
Thank you so much for clearing that up, yes what you have explained makes complete sense.
I was do blindly dedicated to the opinion that the verb " Demand " always requires a subjunctive that I chose B even though " The right of practicing " seemed awkward in B.
In fact this is something new.

I know SC is not so black and white as Maths is . But what about the rest of the verbs that have been classified as " Common verbs that take ONLY the command subjunctive "
Demand, dictate,insist, mandate, propose,recommend,request,stipulate, suggest.

1) Apart from demand can other subjunctive verbs also take the direct object?

The mayor proposed power to the minorities. Is this construction correct? Here "Power" is the noun and " to the minorities " is the infinitive modifier.The infinitive idiom attaches to the noun " power" and not to the verb "proposed".

of course the subjunctive construction " The Mayor proposed that power be given to the Minorities " seems better.

2)Also can you share any link where the complete list of such nouns that take infinitive as a modifier is given, such as right, power, capacity, ability,etc .Thanks.

Dear qlx,
I'm happy to respond.

The word "mandate" is used sometimes as a noun, but its use as a verb is quite rare in modern English. I will say, as a general rule, that just about any verb that can take a clause as a direct object can also take a simple noun as a direct object.

I demand respect.
I dictate the terms of the surrender.
I insist on respect. (notice the idiomatic preposition "on" here)
I propose a truce.
I recommend my best friend for the job.
I request some figgy pudding.
I stipulate three new conditions on the sale.
I suggest a change in the plan.

Now, the construction you suggested is awkward:
The mayor proposed greater political power to the minorities.
Your solution, using a "that" clause with the subjunctive, is one possible improvement. Another would be:
The mayor proposed greater political power for the minorities

I suggested a few common nouns that take an infinitive, but I don't have anything like a complete list available. I would says, we get into a tricky region, because in many cases, an idiomatic infinitive might be conflated with an infinitive of purpose, which any verb might take:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/the-infin ... orrection/

I would say, rather than worry about compiling complete lists of grammatical things, it is far far more important to read, to cultivate a daily habit of hard sophisticated reading.
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/how-to-im ... bal-score/

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Dear Mike,
Thank you once again for clearing this up.
Yes whatever you have explained makes complete sense. From now on I am not going to blindly go for the subjunctive construction if there is a bossy verb involved.

Yes here my attempt to use mandate as a noun
The Syrian refugees were welcomed only after they promised to adhere to the mandate of the Host country.
The recent elections gave the new political party a clear mandate.

I have tried to use " Mandate " as a noun in both the cases.
I have also tried to use Mandate in two different meanings in both the sentences.
Let me know if I have succeeded.
Thanks.

Dear qlx,
I'm happy to respond.

I would say your second sentence,
"The recent elections gave the new political party a clear mandate."
is perfectly natural, and 9 out of 10 times that the word "mandate" is used, it is used exactly in this sense---some politician or party claiming a "mandate" after an election. Politicians love to do that sort of thing.
The first sentence,
"The Syrian refugees were welcomed only after they promised to adhere to the mandate of the Host country."
is fine. This idea would not typically be expressed in this way, at least in the newspapers, but that's fine. These aren't really two different meanings. The word "mandate" has the root meaning of "a command." In some ways, it is a very one-dimensional word: it has a relatively narrow scope of meanings. Every usage implies some kind of command---the commands of the host country in your first sentence, and the commands of the electorate in the second.

What is much more rare, almost archaic, is using mandate not as a noun, which occurs now and then, but as a verb.
The courts mandated a moratorium on the activities of the agency cited for harassment.
It's sometimes used in legal proceedings, because the courts often use a great deal of archaic language for whatever reason. This is not a usage one typically sees in the newspaper.

I would hazard a guess that one could sit for 20 GMATs and never once see the word "mandate." It's a relatively rare word, especially compared to some of the other "bossy" words.

Mike
_________________

@e-gmat
The use of demand requires "that". The OA does not follow this usage. So I had eliminated (E) and marked (A) as the answer.

Could you please clarify my confusion?

"Demand" does no necessarily take a command subjunctive (in which case "demand that" would be necessary) -"demand X from Y" or reversing the position of direct object and indirect object, "demand from Y X" is also correct.

@e-gmat
The "error" in choice A here doesn't go along with the idea that as long as there is no LOGICAL ambiguity as to which antecedent a personal pronoun can refer to, there is no error. Logically, there is no ambiguity what the "they" in choice A is referring to; it could only logically refer to "minority groups" and NOT the "people in power". Please advise.

Hello jlo1234,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe that we can help resolve your doubt.

The logical break described by you here is not strong enough to void pronoun ambiguity. Although the meaning conveyed by assuming "that" refers to "the people in power" - that minority groups eventually demand that the people in power have the right to practice their particular religion without restriction - is somewhat illogical, it is still a technically coherent and plausible meaning. The exception to pronoun ambiguity applies when incorrect pronoun reference leads to an obviously impossible or highly illogical meaning. For example, "Tom and Mary baked cakes, then they watched a movie."; here, "they" cannot possibly refer to "cakes", as "cakes" are non-living things that cannot conceivably watch a movie.

To understand the exceptions to pronoun ambiguity on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

ParamjitDasGMAT

Can you please share your reasoning to eliminate option C?

Thanks

official explanation from princetonreview:

The underlined portion of the sentence contains the third-person pronoun they, so look for pronoun errors. The pronoun they might refer to either minority groups or people in power. The referent of the pronoun is ambiguous, so eliminate choice A and look for obvious repeaters. None of the remaining answer choices employ the pronoun they, so there are no obvious repeaters. Now, evaluate the remaining choices individually, looking for reasons to eliminate each answer.

Choice B fixes the original error, but introduces the phrase the right of practicing, which is not idiomatic. The correct idiom, the right to practice, employs an infinitive verb. Eliminate choice B. Choice C fixes the original pronoun error, but introduces a new pronoun error by replacing the noun phrase the people in power with the noun phrase the ones in power. Here, the pronoun ones might refer to minority groups or to people in general. The referent of the pronoun is ambiguous, so eliminate choice C. Choice D fixes the original error, but introduces an idiom error by using the phrase the right…of practicing. The correct idiom is the right to practice. Eliminate choice D. Choice E corrects the error in the original sentence by eliminating the pronoun they, and introduces no new errors. Keep choice E.

Alternatively, if it is difficult to spot the grammar rule this sentence is testing, another strategy is to identify an error from the answer choices by looking for either a 2/3 split or differences among the answers. Three of the answer choices end with the infinitive to practice and two end with the prepositional phrase of practicing. This difference is an indication to look for idiom errors.

Choice A: No. The referent of the pronoun they is ambiguous. Pronoun ambiguity.

Choice B: No. The phrase the right of practicing is not idiomatic. Idiom.

Choice C: No. The referent of the pronoun ones is ambiguous. Pronoun ambiguity.

Choice D: No. The phrase the right…of practicing is not idiomatic. Idiom.

Choice E: Correct.

The correct answer is choice E.

Please help me to understand the answer choices because I don't find the existing explanations satisfactory.

In most social systems, minority groups eventually demand from the people in power that they have the right to practice their particular religion without restriction.

(A) from the people in power that they have the right to practice

(B) that the people in power give them the right of practicing

(C) to have the right, from the ones in power, to practice

(D) the right, from those in power, of practicing

(E) from those in power the right to practice

'those', and 'ones' in the options should be referring to minority groups and 'they' and 'them' are both ambiguous in answer choices.