ashardeep128 wrote:
GMATNinja, can you please help with the explanation?
Quote:
(A) 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.
The first thing I notice here is the "if" construction. Because we're introducing a conditional scenario, we need "would" in the second part of that construction.
"If Tim forgot to study, he would fail the test."
That's fine. Here we see the consequences Tim would face
if he didn't study.
"If Tim forgot to study, he failed the test."
Not fine! Now it seems like Tim actually failed. But if Tim actually failed, why is this whole sentence framed with the conditional "if?" That's a problem.
(A) is more like the second example. We get "was," making it sound like the grip was
actually insecure, as opposed to conveying what would be true in a hypothetical situation.
So (A) is out.
Quote:
(B) 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 without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure.
Looks good. Now we get the conditional "would," so the main problem in (A) is fixed.
And of the pronouns here all seem to point to something logical. "It" is "the Strait of Gibraltar." "They" refers to "the French." So let's hold on to (B).
Quote:
(C) 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 their grip on Algeria was not ever secure if they did not hold it.
Same problem as (A): this option uses "was" when we want the conditional "would" instead. (C) is gone.
Quote:
(D) 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 without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria.
The phrase "that without that" makes my head hurt. If you read it a few times you can figure out what the author means -- the first "that" is introducing a clause and the second "that" appears to be a pronoun standing for "the Strait of Gibraltar." While that's not an absolute grammatical error, it's far less clear than (B).
Then there's the phrase "they could never be secure
about their grip." This seems to suggest that the French might
feel insecure about their grip. What does that even mean? That the French might think that "Algeria" is cheating on them with other colonial powers?
Contrast this nonsense with the meaning in (B), which conveys a scenario in which the grip
itself might be insecure. That's way more logical in this context.
So (D) is out.
Quote:
(E) 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 never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it.
The phrase "they assumed that never would their grip on Algeria be secure" might not be grammatically incorrect, but it's a hot mess, and you need to read it several times to make sense of it.
Also, by including the conditional "would" part of the construction before the "if" component, at first we're left to think that the French just assumed their grip on Algeria would never be secure
in general, before discovering that this is the case only if the French did not hold the Strait of Gibraltar. Inherently wrong? No. But it's confusing.
If (B) is clearer and less confusing than (E), it's better. So (B) is our answer.
Isn't the "it" in AC B referring to Morocco and not "the Strait of Gibraltar"?
close
19 Jul 2022, 01:44
