Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 04:20 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 04:20
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
555-605 Level|   Clauses|   Meaning/Logical Predication|   Pronouns|                  
User avatar
sayantanc2k
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Last visit: 09 Dec 2022
Posts: 2,393
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 26
Location: Germany
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE:Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Expert
Expert reply
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
Posts: 2,393
Kudos: 15,523
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
BillyZ
User avatar
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Last visit: 03 May 2025
Posts: 1,143
Own Kudos:
22,215
 [6]
Given Kudos: 926
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V40 (Online)
GPA: 3.53
Products:
5
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
Rocket7
Joined: 24 Sep 2011
Last visit: 01 Jan 2023
Posts: 82
Own Kudos:
87
 [1]
Given Kudos: 47
Products:
Posts: 82
Kudos: 87
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
EducationAisle
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
 [1]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Rocket7
If simple past then condition will have Simple past or use of would. is this rule correct?
Hi Rocket7, both can be correct, in specific contexts.

i) Condition in simple past, followed by simple past: In ancient Egypt, if a person committed crime, he was stoned. (both events happening in the past, depicting a generally true condition in the past)

ii) Condition in simple past, followed by usage of would: Jack realized that if he did not work hard, he would fail. (Prediction of future, made in the past)

Quote:
If the above said if-then rule for simple Past is correct then can anyone explain why option A and Option E are wrong.
The context here conforms to prediction of future, made in the past (their grip on Algeria would never be secure). Hence, option A (Condition in simple past, followed by simple past) is not correct.

You would notice that E is just needlessly an inverted conditional.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses Hypothetical Conditional, its application and examples in significant detail. If someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.
User avatar
DivyaKnows
Joined: 09 Apr 2018
Last visit: 26 Jun 2019
Posts: 19
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 19
Kudos: 7
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The starting modifier should modify Morocco and not France, even though logically we do understand it refers to France grammatically it refers to Morocco since it is touching the modifier.

Please explain.
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
DivyaKnows
The starting modifier should modify Morocco and not France, even though logically we do understand it refers to France grammatically it refers to Morocco since it is touching the modifier.

Please explain.
The it refers to Morocco. That's a meaning call.

Also, the word France is not there in the sentence. The sentence actually uses French. In fact, the non-underlined portion uses they to refer to the French.
User avatar
bbb123
Joined: 18 Oct 2018
Last visit: 17 Jul 2022
Posts: 9
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 57
Location: Thailand
GPA: 3.42
WE:Other (Other)
Posts: 9
Kudos: 6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I eliminate B. because I think commas is required after it >> without it, their grip on Algeria would never be secure.

Any suggestion? Thank you!
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [2]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [2]
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
bbb123
I eliminate B. because I think commas is required after it >> without it, their grip on Algeria would never be secure.

Any suggestion? Thank you!
Hi bbb123,

I wouldn't use that to remove option B (which, by the way, is the correct answer :)). It's okay to skip the comma after a short prepositional phrase (in this case, without it).

In general, we should try not to remove an option only on the basis of how it uses a comma. There are certain things, like comma splices, that we definitely want to avoid, but most of the other "rules" we come across are not particularly reliable.
User avatar
dcummins
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Last visit: 08 Oct 2025
Posts: 1,064
Own Kudos:
2,323
 [1]
Given Kudos: 368
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 600 Q38 V35
GMAT 6: 710 Q47 V41
WE:Management Consulting (Consulting)
Products:
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
it = Morocco (singular) ; "They" is referring to the French

(A) if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure
(C) their grip on Algeria was not ever secure if they did not hold it

A is out because the conditional statements tenses are a bit illogical. We typically need "would" to state the then component if the then component needs to follow the if.

(D) without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria
D is now illogically stating that the French people themselves would never be secure when we are talking about the security of the French
grip, not the people themselves.

'that' could also be referring to The Straight.. or Morocco

(E) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it

E is ambiguous as "it" could refer to Algeria or Morocco



(B) without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure
User avatar
adityaganjoo
Joined: 10 Jan 2021
Last visit: 04 Oct 2022
Posts: 148
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 154
Posts: 148
Kudos: 32
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
alicegmat
Multiple issues:
1. This construction implies a conditional. Check the if constrcution.
Also note that, not every conditional requires an if.Also, then can be correctly omitted from If-then constructions.
One more rule. was cannot be used in conditional's mail clause. Conditional calls for would
We have a split between if and non-if clauses. Both splits are correct, because the non-if clause still correctly indicates the meaning of a conditional. subject assumed that without something, something would happen - A clear conditional.
Choice A uses was in place of would - incorrect
Choice B correct use of would
Choice C - again, incorrect was
Choice D - could - an acceptable conditional but changes the meaning
choice E - would - correct

Other issues
A - wordy, awkward
B - correct
C - not ever: wordy ; what does pronoun it refer to? Morocco, Algeria or grip?
D - that - incorrect pronoun, could: changes meaning.
E - Correct verb, correct tense. but - the inversion? Only in poems, not on the gmat. and the pronoun it again.
(Note however that I have seen many OG problems whose correct choices have a pronoun with multiple possible antecedents. I would suggest that one doesn't eliminate such choices right away only on this basis)
One more issue: Secure about theri grip in C has different meaning than intended; intended meaning is a secure grip.

Please help me understand: In (B), without it looks incomplete. It doesn't clarify that it must be held. While in (E), this is clearly mentioned. Why should (E) be rejected only on the basis of inversion?
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [2]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
adityaganjoo
Please help me understand: In (B), without it looks incomplete. It doesn't clarify that it must be held. While in (E), this is clearly mentioned. Why should (E) be rejected only on the basis of inversion?
Hi adityaganjoo,

Without it is a modifier. That part of the sentence may be easier to read with a couple of commas around it.

1. ... they assumed that, without it, their grip on Algeria would never be secure. ← After that, we have a subject-verb combination.

Or we could move the modifier:

2. ... they assumed that their grip on Algeria would never be secure without it. ← Moving it to the end does introduce (a little bit of) ambiguity. Does the it refer to Algeria?

Option E also places the it at the end, so that's another reason to take that option out (greater ambiguity).
User avatar
warrior1991
Joined: 03 Mar 2017
Last visit: 03 Feb 2022
Posts: 573
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 596
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Technology
Products:
Posts: 573
Kudos: 437
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AjiteshArun
adityaganjoo
Please help me understand: In (B), without it looks incomplete. It doesn't clarify that it must be held. While in (E), this is clearly mentioned. Why should (E) be rejected only on the basis of inversion?
Hi adityaganjoo,

Without it is a modifier. That part of the sentence may be easier to read with a couple of commas around it.

1. ... they assumed that, without it, their grip on Algeria would never be secure. ← After that, we have a subject-verb combination.

Or we could move the modifier:

2. ... they assumed that their grip on Algeria would never be secure without it. ← Moving it to the end does introduce (a little bit of) ambiguity. Does the it refer to Algeria?

Option E also places the it at the end, so that's another reason to take that option out (greater ambiguity).


Hi AjiteshArun

In option E, the structure is in inverted form. When we flip it and read, it sounds good.
Are we rejecting option E because of the problematic 'it', which has pronoun ambiguity(Referring to both Algeria and Morocco)??

Do we have any other reason to eliminate E other than the pronoun ambiguity??
User avatar
adityaganjoo
Joined: 10 Jan 2021
Last visit: 04 Oct 2022
Posts: 148
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 154
Posts: 148
Kudos: 32
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AjiteshArun
adityaganjoo
Please help me understand: In (B), without it looks incomplete. It doesn't clarify that it must be held. While in (E), this is clearly mentioned. Why should (E) be rejected only on the basis of inversion?
Hi adityaganjoo,

Without it is a modifier. That part of the sentence may be easier to read with a couple of commas around it.

1. ... they assumed that, without it, their grip on Algeria would never be secure. ← After that, we have a subject-verb combination.

Or we could move the modifier:

2. ... they assumed that their grip on Algeria would never be secure without it. ← Moving it to the end does introduce (a little bit of) ambiguity. Does the it refer to Algeria?

Option E also places the it at the end, so that's another reason to take that option out (greater ambiguity).

Hi AjiteshArun Even if "without it" is a modifier, it does not clarify whether 'it' needs to be held, retained, secured or something else. So why would we prefer (B) over something that is much clearer? And as per GMATNinja, clarity of meaning trumps pronoun ambiguity. Please let me know if I am wrong
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,020
Own Kudos:
8,563
 [2]
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,020
Kudos: 8,563
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
adityaganjoo
Well, any time we want to fight an official GMAT question, we will have to admit defeat, and this is no exception.

In this case, I think we've got a false choice on our hands. E doesn't make a stylistic sacrifice to improve the clarity of meaning. Sure, I'd be pretty comfortable crossing out E for that very archaic-sounding inversion, but that's not the only reason to cut E. The placement of "it" actually makes the meaning less clear. In B, "it" only has one sensible antecedent: Morocco. The French didn't want to be without it; they wanted to hold on to that territory. By moving "it" to the end, E opens up a number of possible antecedents: Morocco, grip, and Algeria.
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [2]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi warrior1991 and adityaganjoo,

To add to DmitryFarber's point: pronoun ambiguity may be pretty low on our list of things to look out for in SC questions, but it's not as if we can ignore it completely. The GMAT can, and will, occasionally test us on pronoun ambiguity.

As for whether we need to include hold in some way, I think that the intended meaning is clear even without hold.
User avatar
VineelSurya
Joined: 24 May 2021
Last visit: 12 Mar 2023
Posts: 11
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 48
Location: India
Schools: Scheller '25
Schools: Scheller '25
Posts: 11
Kudos: 2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sayantanc2k
zoezhuyan
anyone can help pronoun issue?

why it refers to Morocco in B, IMO, pronoun "it " is ambiguous, because the pronoun "it" can refer to Morocco, also Strait or Gibraltar

thanks in advance

have a nice day
>_~

There is a causation relation in this sentence.

Why Morocco was of interest to the French?... because without Morocco, the French would be at a disadvantage.

From the context of the sentence the logical antecedent of "it" is "Morocco".

"sayantanc2k",
In Option B, Shouldn't there be a "," after without it ? Something as "without it, their grip on Algeria would never be secure" ??
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,195
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,195
Kudos: 4,765
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VineelSurya
sayantanc2k
zoezhuyan
anyone can help pronoun issue?

why it refers to Morocco in B, IMO, pronoun "it " is ambiguous, because the pronoun "it" can refer to Morocco, also Strait or Gibraltar

thanks in advance

have a nice day
>_~

There is a causation relation in this sentence.

Why Morocco was of interest to the French?... because without Morocco, the French would be at a disadvantage.

From the context of the sentence the logical antecedent of "it" is "Morocco".

"sayantanc2k",
In Option B, Shouldn't there be a "," after without it ? Something as "without it, their grip on Algeria would never be secure" ??

Hello VineelSurya,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, no; no comma is needed in Option B.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
souvik19
Joined: 27 Feb 2021
Last visit: 03 Apr 2023
Posts: 83
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 41
Location: India
Posts: 83
Kudos: 34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
seofah
Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar, Morocco was also of interest to the French throughout the first half of the twentieth century because they assumed that if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure.


(A) if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure

(B) without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure

(C) their grip on Algeria was not ever secure if they did not hold it

(D) without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria

(E) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it


Attachment:
01.jpg
Attachment:
02.jpg
Attachment:
03.jpg

Guys, this question was asked a few times.
It is an excellent question to learn from.
Please take time to explain thoroughly.
Thanks! :)

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/06/books/nonfiction-in-brief-003388.html

In addition to its strategic proximity to the Straits of Gibraltar, Morocco was of interest to the French because without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure. Mr. Porch describes with flourishes the period between 1903 and 1912 during which France ''nibbled'' away at Morocco until she digested her into the empire.


While I got this question right, I took excessive time. Waht hold me for long is the use of "it". Is it possible that the "it" can refer to both, Morocco and "interest"?

Would appreciate an expert advice

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,195
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,195
Kudos: 4,765
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
souvik19
seofah
Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar, Morocco was also of interest to the French throughout the first half of the twentieth century because they assumed that if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure.


(A) if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure

(B) without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure

(C) their grip on Algeria was not ever secure if they did not hold it

(D) without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria

(E) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it

Attachment:
01.jpg
Attachment:
02.jpg
Attachment:
03.jpg

Guys, this question was asked a few times.
It is an excellent question to learn from.
Please take time to explain thoroughly.
Thanks! :)

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/06/books/nonfiction-in-brief-003388.html

In addition to its strategic proximity to the Straits of Gibraltar, Morocco was of interest to the French because without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure. Mr. Porch describes with flourishes the period between 1903 and 1912 during which France ''nibbled'' away at Morocco until she digested her into the empire.


While I got this question right, I took excessive time. Waht hold me for long is the use of "it". Is it possible that the "it" can refer to both, Morocco and "interest"?

Would appreciate an expert advice

Posted from my mobile device
Hello souvik19,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, no; a pronoun and its derivatives can only refer to one entity in a given sentence.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
Snehaaaaa
Joined: 09 Mar 2021
Last visit: 13 Feb 2025
Posts: 135
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 161
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V34
GPA: 3.68
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V34
Posts: 135
Kudos: 429
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
seofah
Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar, Morocco was also of interest to the French throughout the first half of the twentieth century because they assumed that if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure.


(A) if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure

(B) without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure

(C) their grip on Algeria was not ever secure if they did not hold it

(D) without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria

(E) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it

In conditional statements with-
If (Simple Past), then 'would' verb form should be used

(A) if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure - tense (was) problem; would must be used instead
(B) without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure- correct
(C) their grip on Algeria was not ever secure if they did not hold it - tense (was) problem.
(D) without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria- tense (could) problem and awkward.
(E) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it- pronoun problem and also changes the meaning of the sentence.
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
188 posts