Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar, Morocco was

First Glance

The underline begins with the word if. Some kind of conditional verb structure might be an issue.

Issues

(1) Verb: was

The original sentence uses the conditional structure if X, (then) Y. Conditional structures require certain verb tenses, depending on the intended meaning of the sentence. (Note: Some answers don't specifically use the word if, but the conditional nature of the meaning is still clear.)

In this case, the if portion is in past tense (if they did not hold it) and the full meaning is hypothetical: They did not know what was going to happen after that. The second half of the structure, then, should be in the present conditional form: Their grip would be insecure. Answers (A) and (C) both incorrectly use simple past was for the conditional portion of the sentence; eliminate them.

(2) Pronoun: it; that

Four of the five answers use the pronoun it; answer (D) uses the pronoun that. The word it is a personal pronoun; the word that is a demonstrative pronoun.

When demonstrative pronouns are used alone, not in conjunction with a noun, such as "that car", they should not refer to a noun that is located within the same main clause. In answer (D), the pronoun that refers to Morocco, which is in the same main clause. Eliminate answer (D).

The other four all use it, so they must all be correct, right? Not so fast. Answers (A) and (B) do correctly use it; first, the noun Morocco appears, then the pronoun it, which refers to Morocco, and finally Algeria (so it's clear that it does not refer to Algeria). In answers (C) and (E), however, the pronoun it does not appear until the end of the sentence. Do the French need to hold Morocco or Algeria? The sentence is no longer clear. Eliminate answers (C) and (E).

(3) Meaning

The original sentence says that their grip was insecure. Answer (B) conveys a similar meaning, this time with the correct conditional tense: Their grip would never be secure. In both cases, the grip is the thing that is (or is not) secure. Answer (D) changes this structure: The French could never be secure about their grip. What's the difference?

The meaning in answer (D) no longer indicates whether the grip actually is secure. Rather, this choice talks about how the French feel about the situation. For example: The dog could not be secure about his grip on the bone (he wasn't sure he had a good grip on the bone). The dog's grip on the bone was not secure (he definitely did not have a good grip on the bone). The two sentences convey different meanings. Eliminate answer (D).

The Correct Answer

Correct answer (B) fixes the initial tense error by changing was to the conditional would be.
_________________

Hi guys. I just want to check the if-then rule.

If simple past then condition will have Simple past or use of would. is this rule correct?

If the above said if-then rule for simple Past is correct then can anyone explain why option A and Option E are wrong.

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)


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.
_________________

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.
_________________

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.
_________________

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

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??
_________________

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

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.
_________________

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.
_________________

"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
_________________

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
_________________

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.