Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

 It is currently 10 Feb 2016, 02:10

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Posts: 66
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

I believe this is the most blatant case of the GMAC being contradictory. I know most experienced GMAT victims have found that pronoun ambiguity tolerance is somewhat of a gray area, but can someone please explain how pronoun ambiguity is cause for dismissal of choice C here, yet a nearly identical situation further below is allowed. Or how can the two not be compared?

Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

A. Heavy commitment by an executive to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes it likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.
B. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that worked well in the past, makes missing signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting ones likely when they do appear.
C. An executive who is heavily committed to a course of action is likely to miss or misinterpret signs of incipient trouble when they do appear, especially if it has worked well in the past.
D. Executives’ being heavily committed to a course of action, especially if it has worked well in the past, makes them likely to miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpreting them when they do appear.
E. Being heavily committed to a course of action, especially one that has worked well in the past, is likely to make an executive miss signs of incipient trouble or misinterpret them when they do appear.

OA = E
Reason for C being incorrect is -- "The reference for the pronoun it is unclear because many nouns have intervened between the appearance of the logical referent (course of action) and it."

YET

Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fie lds of large sea areas. they have already stimulated international disputes over uninhabited islands.

(A) Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated
(B) Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated
(C) Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating
(D) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, this has already stimulated
(E) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fie lds of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, which is already stimulating

OA=B
Couldn't make these two cases more similar if I tried!
 Kaplan GMAT Prep Discount Codes Knewton GMAT Discount Codes Manhattan GMAT Discount Codes
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 644
Location: Cambridge, MA
Followers: 78

Kudos [?]: 224 [3] , given: 2

3
KUDOS
Expert's post
In the second problem, 'new maritime code' is the subject of the sentence, and 'the basis' is part of the predicate. Since 'it' in the second half of the sentence is the subject of a new clause, it is clear that 'it' was intended to reproduce the first subject.

In the first case you cited, 'course of action' and 'incipient trouble' are BOTH part of the predicate of the sentence. Since neither of them are a subject, the fact that 'it' is the subject of the dependent clause 'it has worked in the past' does not let us associate the pronoun with a particular antecedent, so the sentence is ambigious.

Hope this helps!

Eli
_________________

Eli Meyer
Kaplan Teacher
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT

Prepare with Kaplan and save $150 on a course! Kaplan Reviews Manager Joined: 26 Apr 2011 Posts: 66 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0 Re: pronoun ambiguity contradiction [#permalink] 21 Nov 2011, 08:28 Yes, it completley helps! Why am I not finding this rule (clause/predicate specification) in MGMAT, Kaplan, or SC bible!!! Manager Status: SC SC SC SC SC.... Concentrating on SC alone. Joined: 20 Dec 2010 Posts: 240 Location: India Concentration: General Management GMAT Date: 12-30-2011 Followers: 3 Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 47 Re: pronoun ambiguity contradiction [#permalink] 27 Nov 2011, 05:29 KapTeacherEli wrote: In the second problem, 'new maritime code' is the subject of the sentence, and 'the basis' is part of the predicate. Since 'it' in the second half of the sentence is the subject of a new clause, it is clear that 'it' was intended to reproduce the first subject. In the first case you cited, 'course of action' and 'incipient trouble' are BOTH part of the predicate of the sentence. Since neither of them are a subject, the fact that 'it' is the subject of the dependent clause 'it has worked in the past' does not let us associate the pronoun with a particular antecedent, so the sentence is ambigious. Hope this helps! Eli Hi Eli, This absolutely helps. Great ! Can you please extend this a little bit with a little more cases. What if the pronoun appears in the part of the predicate of the clause 2, where should we look for the antecedent. Only this possibility struck to me. If there were other possibilities also please do explain. nd also with respect to the above problem, Is it perfect to say that, the pronoun in the subject of the other clause of the sentence clearly refers only to the subject in the clause 1. If the pronoun and the antecedent (i.e. subject of clause 1) do not match up correctly then there is a pronoun error ). Am i getting it right. ? Thanks in advance ! _________________ D- Day December 30 2011. Hoping for the happiest new year celebrations ! Aiming for 700+ Kudo me if the post is worth it Kaplan GMAT Instructor Joined: 25 Aug 2009 Posts: 644 Location: Cambridge, MA Followers: 78 Kudos [?]: 224 [0], given: 2 Re: pronoun ambiguity contradiction [#permalink] 27 Nov 2011, 08:07 Expert's post ksp wrote: KapTeacherEli wrote: In the second problem, 'new maritime code' is the subject of the sentence, and 'the basis' is part of the predicate. Since 'it' in the second half of the sentence is the subject of a new clause, it is clear that 'it' was intended to reproduce the first subject. In the first case you cited, 'course of action' and 'incipient trouble' are BOTH part of the predicate of the sentence. Since neither of them are a subject, the fact that 'it' is the subject of the dependent clause 'it has worked in the past' does not let us associate the pronoun with a particular antecedent, so the sentence is ambigious. Hope this helps! Eli Hi Eli, This absolutely helps. Great ! Can you please extend this a little bit with a little more cases. What if the pronoun appears in the part of the predicate of the clause 2, where should we look for the antecedent. Only this possibility struck to me. If there were other possibilities also please do explain. nd also with respect to the above problem, Is it perfect to say that, the pronoun in the subject of the other clause of the sentence clearly refers only to the subject in the clause 1. If the pronoun and the antecedent (i.e. subject of clause 1) do not match up correctly then there is a pronoun error ). Am i getting it right. ? Thanks in advance ! Unforutnately, it's hard to give generalizations; as with many things in English, the answer is context-dependent. However, it's not true that it is automatically wrong for a pronoun in the predicate to refer to a noun that was a subject, or vice versa. This rule is only useful for resolving pronoun ambiguity. If a pronoun that is a subject is logically intended to replace a noun in a predicate, but could also grammatically replace the predicate's subject, then the meaning is wrong. Correct: When a farm plane air-drops pesticides, they spread farther than when distributed by other means. Incorrect: When farm planes air-drop pesticides, they spread farther than when distributed by other means. _________________ Eli Meyer Kaplan Teacher http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT Prepare with Kaplan and save$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

Manager
Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Posts: 66
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0

I'm confused. Previously you said:
"In the second problem, 'new maritime code' is the subject of the sentence, and 'the basis' is part of the predicate. Since 'it' in the second half of the sentence is the subject of a new clause, it is clear that 'it' was intended to reproduce the first subject."

Could you not use your explanation as such:

Airplanes is the subject of the sentence and 'pesticides' is part of the predicate. Since 'they' in the second half of the sentence is the subject of a new clause, it is clear that 'they' was intended to reproduce the first subject.

?
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 644
Location: Cambridge, MA
Followers: 78

Kudos [?]: 224 [0], given: 2

Expert's post
stringworm wrote:
I'm confused. Previously you said:
"In the second problem, 'new maritime code' is the subject of the sentence, and 'the basis' is part of the predicate. Since 'it' in the second half of the sentence is the subject of a new clause, it is clear that 'it' was intended to reproduce the first subject."

Could you not use your explanation as such:

Airplanes is the subject of the sentence and 'pesticides' is part of the predicate. Since 'they' in the second half of the sentence is the subject of a new clause, it is clear that 'they' was intended to reproduce the first subject.

?
Grammatically, yes--but logically, the sentence makes no sense if for farm planes to spread farther! Remember, meaning counts on the GMAT as much as grammar.
_________________

Eli Meyer
Kaplan Teacher
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT

Prepare with Kaplan and save $150 on a course! Kaplan Reviews Manager Joined: 26 Apr 2011 Posts: 66 Followers: 0 Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 0 Re: pronoun ambiguity contradiction [#permalink] 01 Dec 2011, 20:31 Fair enough, and one last question about pronoun ambiguity before I put said topic to bed for life: In the following sentence, how does choice A have an ambiguous pronoun, yet choice B (the right answer) does not: Constructed with the finest Italian marble, the floor of the church is its greatest attraction and is more attractive to tourists than are its ornate windows. attraction and is more attractive to tourists than are its ornate windows attraction, itself more attractive to tourists than are its ornate windows attraction, itself more attractive to tourists as are its ornate windows attraction, being more attractive to tourists than are its ornate windows attraction, and itself is more attractive to tourists than ornate windows Kaplan GMAT Instructor Joined: 25 Aug 2009 Posts: 644 Location: Cambridge, MA Followers: 78 Kudos [?]: 224 [0], given: 2 Re: pronoun ambiguity contradiction [#permalink] 02 Dec 2011, 07:39 Expert's post stringworm wrote: Fair enough, and one last question about pronoun ambiguity before I put said topic to bed for life: In the following sentence, how does choice A have an ambiguous pronoun, yet choice B (the right answer) does not: Constructed with the finest Italian marble, the floor of the church is its greatest attraction and is more attractive to tourists than are its ornate windows. attraction and is more attractive to tourists than are its ornate windows attraction, itself more attractive to tourists than are its ornate windows attraction, itself more attractive to tourists as are its ornate windows attraction, being more attractive to tourists than are its ornate windows attraction, and itself is more attractive to tourists than ornate windows Can you point me to the source of this problem? I think I know what's going on here, but I want to double check before I post. _________________ Eli Meyer Kaplan Teacher http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT Prepare with Kaplan and save$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Doubt on Subject-object pronouns 2 09 Apr 2013, 08:12
Kaplan contradict themselves on plugging in 1 and 0 1 10 Mar 2012, 14:03
lower/less -- more/greater contradictions on official GMAT 3 25 Nov 2011, 12:50
5 The single most popular and ambiguous concept in SC! 4 21 Nov 2011, 13:28
Ambiguous pronouns 1 24 Sep 2011, 09:45
Display posts from previous: Sort by