1. I am afraid Placeholders come in on a different setting. After all, they are dummies and fillers and don't have anything to refer to as very often they begin a sentence. But in the BRCA case, is there a placeholder 'it'. Nope. So citing placeholders as referring to different pronouns is erroneous.
2. If the second clause, has a pronoun and if it is going to refer to a different noun, then that noun should be appearing the second clause. There is no such word as ' patent' in the second clause.
Quote:
The rule must read - a pronoun when used in different places in one and the same clause cannot refer to different antecedents. (Not sentence)
Here is a snippet
Magoosh's Mike:
Quote:
The GMAT hates ambiguity on Sentence Correction. In any Sentence Correction question, the same pronoun must refer to the same antecedent. It is 100% unacceptable to have the same pronoun refer to two different antecedents: even if you think you can interpret from context the antecedent in each case, the grammar and syntax themselves must make all distinctions crystal clear. It’s not enough for logic to fill in the holes in grammar: in a well-constructed GMAT sentence, logic and grammar must say exactly the same thing. Anything less than that is unacceptable to the GMAT.
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-pronoun-traps/ It may be noted that Mike doesn't even mention clauses or sentences. He categorically states "
In any Sentence Correction question" and wah!!-look at the ferocity of his perception.
Now let us move on to an
OG question .
Formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity do not apply to new small businesses in the same way as they do to established big businesses, because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium.
(A) Formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity do not apply to new small businesses in the same way as they do to established big businesses, because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium.
(B) Because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium, formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity do not apply to new small businesses in the same way as they do to established big businesses.
(C) Because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium, new small businesses are not subject to the same applicability of formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity as established big businesses.
(D) Because new small businesses are growing and are seldom in equilibrium, formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity do not apply to them in the same way as to established big businesses.
(E) New small businesses are not subject to the applicability of formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity in the same way as established big businesses, because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium.
Quote:
OG Solution:
In A, the 'they' after because is ambiguous; it seems illogically to refer to Formulas because they and Formulas are each the grammatical subject of a clause and because the previous
'they' refers to Formulas.
In A and B, do not apply to... in the same way as they do to is wordy and awkward.
D, the best choice, says more concisely in the same way as to.
Also in B, because
'they' refers to formulas, the introductory clause states confusedly that the formulas are growing.
In C and E, subject to the [same] applicability of... is wordy, awkward, and imprecise; furthermore, are is preferable either before or after established big businesses to complete the comparison. Finally, the referent of
'they' is not immediately clear in E.
The question is a two part sentence. The ' they' in the first clause refers to formulas and the second 'they' that is in a different clause cannot refer to formulas. If the second 'they' is interpreted to mean to businesses, however, logical the reference might seem, still is a foul. This is what the
OG's rule is .