Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate

IMO, in choice D, the ‘it’ in the non-underline refers to the company or may be even to the company’s feeling (meaning claim) that it is entitled for patents. But it does not matter to us because it is in non-underline and doesn’t materially affect the example. But the ‘it’ in the underline cannot refer to anything other than company; If we were to take the ‘it’ to refer to patents, the meaning is going to be weird. Let’s see how. We shall now replace the ‘it’ with patents and see how good it is.

D.( the re-phrased version) Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels patents is entitled to its patents on the new DNA compounds, but petitioners in a Supreme Court case are contesting it on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature.
We can see how the reference of the ‘it’ to patents is bizarre.
So I feel there is no reference problem of the pronouns in D; I would take it as passable logically.

Sdas, I am not clear what you say about the referent of ‘them. As far as the placement of ‘now’ is concerned, it isn’t so critical IMO, whether it feels or it now feels. In a way, the present tense verb ‘feels’ itself may imply' now', a present status.

Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound , but petitioners in a Supreme Court case are contesting it on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature.

A. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound ---"subject" which is singular modifying "them" or "genes" which is plural and "compound" which is singular modifying "genes" which is plural.So oincorrect

B. Having had extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound -- usage of past perfect tense is wrong.So Incorrect

C. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate it as a research subject, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound --- "subject" actually should refer back to genes but here it is referring to "DNA" Incorrect

D. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patents on the new DNA compounds--- "subjects" -plural referring back to genes" and "compounds" --plural referring "genes" --plural correctly

E. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels entitled to its patents on the new DNA compound -- "compound" singular referring to "genes" --plural .Incorrect

One requires a working knowledge of molecular biology to understand the full implication of this example

Science has discovered two genes in Human DNA that can potentially cause breast cancer (BRCA stands for Breast Cancer) BRCA1and BRCA2. When these genes are extracted out of the DNA, the DNA becomes BRCA-free. This is what the company claims as the new DNA compound. But so much research is abounding in molecular biology that the BRCAs themselves are intense research subjects while the new BRCA - free DNA is also the subject of immense research.
In the light of the above, to isolate ‘them’ may mean isolating the two types of genes (plural); to isolate ‘it’ may mean to isolate the BRCA - free DNA, the new compound (singular)

Now let’s try to tenderize the various permutations and combinations.

A. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound --- to isolate them (both genes) can go with only the plural research subjects – Therefore, wrong

B. Having had extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound –---having had extracted is awful.

C. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate it as a research subject, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound – ----isolate it and a research subject go in tandem. It refers to the new BRCA-free DNA compound; may be the best choice IMO

D. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patents on the new DNA compounds – The main clause is a problem, there is only one new DNA compound, not compounds as has been made out in the choice

E. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels entitled to its patents on the new DNA compound ---- One can have only one patent for one research subject i.e. the new DNA compound. The plural ‘its patents’ is wrong.

In any case, the OA doesn’t hold water. And to take into account of so many things in the exam hall is unthinkable. Can it truly be a GMAT problem, considering so much technical things are involved? GOK

@HumptyDumpty: You said that we do have a VERITA’S Rep here. Can you kindly get hold of him to seek the OE?

For me its A for the following reasons:

B: ..as research subjects.. (Plural), WRONG, later in non-underline part of the sentence, supreme court are contesting it (singular) clearly refers to the reasearch.
C: .. to isolate it.. (singluar), WRONG, Myriad Genetics isolate BRCA1 and BRCA2 (plural).
D: same problem as B
E: same problem as B

Hope it helps!

The 'it' in the non underlined part refers to the singular Patent, so options D and E are out.

A:[CORRECT]Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound,but petitioners in a Supreme Court case are contesting it on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature.
The 'it' (singular) in the non underlined part refers to the patent. Them correctly refers to BRACA1 and BRACA2.

B.[INCORRECT]Having had extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound, but petitioners in a Supreme Court case are contesting it on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature.
'Having Had' makes this option incorrect.

C.[INCORRECT] Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate it as a research subject, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the
new DNA compound
'it' cannot refer to BRCA1 and BRCA2 we need plural here, so this option is incorrect.

Super tough question!

Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound, but petitioners in a Supreme Court case are contesting it on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature.

A. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound
Correct.

B. Having had extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound
Wrong. Wrong. "now" + simple present tense ==> wrong.

C. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate it as a research subject, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound
Wrong. "it" does not match with "BRCA1 and BRCA1"

D. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patents on the new DNA compounds
Wrong. "compounds" does not match with "it" in the non-underlined part (highlighted blue above)

E. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels entitled to its patents on the new DNA compound
Wrong. "now" + simple present tense ==> wrong.

Hope it helps.

Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound, but petitioners in a Supreme Court case are contesting it on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature.

A. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound
Correct: "them" correctly refers to "BRCA1" and "BRCA2"; "it" and "its" correctly refers to "research subject". The research has to be patented!

B. Having had extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound
Incorrect: singular "it" and "its" cannot refer to plural "subjects"

C. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate it as a research subject, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound
Incorrect: wrong usage of "it" instead of "them"

D. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patents on the new DNA compounds
Incorrect: same as B

E. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels entitled to its patents on the new DNA compound
Incorrect: Myriad is not being entitled, but her "subject" is entitled.

Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound, but petitioners in a Supreme Court case are contesting it on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature.

A. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound – Correct

B. Having had extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound – Past Perfect is not required. ‘Subjects’ must be singular to confirm with singular pronoun ‘Its’

C. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate it as a research subject, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound – First It must be them.

D. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patents on the new DNA compounds – ‘Subjects’ must be Subject. And 'it' after the underline is singular and referring to plural 'patents' in the underline.

E. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels entitled to its patents on the new DNA compound. - ‘Subjects’ must be Subject. And 'it' after the underline is singular and referring to plural 'patents' in the underline.

Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound, but petitioners in a Supreme Court case are contesting it on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature.

we are tested on grounds of pronouns and subject-verb concepts here majorly
Pronouns: them refer to both the genes
it refers to research subject

A is correct as it is

B. Having had extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound
past tense verb had is wrong here since there are not two past events and everything is in present tense.
now is redundant and not necessary
it is used in non underlined portion of sentence to refer research subject so it cant be subjects

C. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate it as a research subject, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound
itis referred to genes(Plural subject) and research(Singular subj) both so pronoun ambiguity is present in this sentence.

D. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patents on the new DNA compounds
subjects and now errors from other options repeat here
compound is changed to compounds changing the intended meaning

E. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels entitled to its patents on the new DNA compound
subjects, compound and now errors from other options repeat here

resounding A!

thanks to veritas tips now i know that meaning matters in SC as much as grammar does.
"now" rules out B C D E because it changes the meaning to implying that previously they had not felt entitled. But that wasn't the matter in the sentence.
The matter or the meaning is "the extraction of some things by a group. consequently they want a copyright".. as in "having worked hard, you expect a reward". "now" even brings redundancy into it.
if the sentence was saying "the group never imagined patenting DNA but...", then "now" might make some sense.

Make sure that you read the non-underlined portions too.

"but petitioners in a Supreme Court case are contesting it on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature." - the 'it' refers to patent.

Also, note the usage of 'having extracted ..." - this denotes a previous action and applies to the subject of the main clause Myriad Genetics. This modifier is followed by an action that happens later.
for example - Having watched the movie, I had dinner. Two actions - watching the movie and having dinner. Watching the movie happened first. This action is followed by another action - having dinner.

A - correct answer.

B - "having had extracted" - the usage of past perfect is unnecessary.
"having extracted" already suggests that this action happened first.

C - "Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate it as a research subject" - this suggests that the company extracted genes to isolate human DNA. this is absurd.

D - "entitled to its patents" -its patents is plural. the 'it' in non-underlined portion cannot refer to patents.

E - "it" cannot refer to "patents".

Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound, but petitioners in a Supreme Court case are contesting it on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature.

A. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound




Pl. let me make a point. There is a rule that a pronoun when used in different places in one and the same sentence cannot refer to different antecedents.
Based on that let's now try to refer the -it- to the patent.


A. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feelsit the patent is entitled to its the patent's patent on the new DNA compound, but petitioners in a Supreme Court case are contesting it the patent on the grounds that a company cannot copyright


Is this correct?. I feel that it refers to the MG rather the patent - let us try to replace it with MG

A. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as a research subject, Myriad Genetics feelsit MG is entitled to[ itsMG's patent on the new DNA compound, but petitioners in a Supreme Court case are contestingit MG on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature.
It may be noted that from what it looks, the patent is yet to be granted and therefore one can't contest something before it has even been created. You can only contest the company or its feeling that it is entitled for something . So I feel A is somewhat cleaved . Secondly, if we refer it to the patent, then there should two patents for two different compounds, in which case, them should be used and not it.


B. Having had extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound --- had extracted is plain wrong

C. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate it as a research subject, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound -- 1.There are two compounds. They cannot be referred by the singular "it" . 2.Use of it to refer to patent is problematic IMO

D. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels it is entitled to its patents on the new DNA compounds -- Actually, D and E are the same, except that E is a little more concise than D.

E. Having extracted the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes from human DNA to isolate them as research subjects, Myriad Genetics now feels entitled to its patents on the new DNA compound -- This is also good; the plurality of the newly extracted compounds is maintained, they are the theme of two different research projects and it is genuinely referring to MG wherever it appears.

But can we have two grammatically correct versions as contenders? E is preferable only by a whisker to D on concision.

Not necessarily true. look here -
It was only after Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers, and it was under her command that the paper won high praise for its unrelenting reporting of the Watergate scandal.

The first and the third "it" are placeholders.
The second "it" refers to Washington Post.

The rule must read - a pronoun when used in different places in one and the same clause cannot refer to different antecedents. (Not sentence)

"but petitioners in a Supreme Court case are contesting it on the grounds that a company cannot copyright nature." - If you replace 'it' with MG then the sentence does not make a lot of sense.
They are contesting MG's Decision, not MG itself.

"Myriad Genetics feels it is entitled to its patent on the new DNA compound" - here "it" refers to MG but not in the next clause.

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.




Here is a snippet Magoosh's Mike:



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.




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 .

Not quite. Placeholders have to refer to something on the GMAT. (they generally refer to a that clause or an infinitive phrase)
Here -
It was only after Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers, and it was under her command that the paper won high praise for its unrelenting reporting of the Watergate scandal.

The first "it" refers to the that clause - that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers
the second "it" refers to - The Washington Post
the third "it" refers to - that the paper won high praise for its ...
the fourth "it" (its) refers to - The Washington Post.

Another example from GMATPrep -
During the last interglacial period, the climate on the Earth was warmer than it is today, and the consequent melting of the polar ice caps caused the sea level to rise about 60 feet above its present height
The first "it" refers to climate on Earth
The second "it" refers to sea level.

This seems to be an old question from OG 10. Pronoun Ambiguity is no longer tested on the GMAT.
Even if you consider pronoun ambiguity, the 'they' is ambiguous because it can refer either to 'established big businesses' or 'new small businesses'. It is not necessary that 'they' has to refer to formulas.
You cannot analyze a sentence purely from a grammatical point of view. The sentence has to make logical sense. Substituting 'formulas' for 'they' does not make much sense.

A seems fine.
Genes together can form one subject
e.g. Students- of a class- can become one subject