Although Napoleon’s army entered Russia with far more supplies than

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Concepts tested here: Pronouns + Tenses + Redundancy/Awkwardness

• Collective nouns (such as “army” in this sentence) are always singular.
• When the chronology is clear because of term such "before/after/when/earlier/later…" or because of clear mention of dates, use past perfect tense is not required, though not incorrect either.

A: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun “army” with the plural pronoun “they”; please remember, collective nouns (such as “army” in this sentence) are always singular. Further, Option A needlessly uses the past perfect tense verb “had been”, rendering it needlessly wordy and awkward; this usage is unnecessary, as the word “previous” clearly denotes the order of events; remember, when the chronology is clear because of terms such as "before/after/when/earlier/later"…" or because of clear mention of dates, use past perfect tense is not required, though not incorrect either.

B: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun “army” with the plural pronoun “they”; please remember, collective nouns (such as “army” in this sentence) are always singular. Further, Option B needlessly uses the past perfect tense verb “had been”, rendering it needlessly wordy and awkward; this usage is unnecessary, as the word “previous” clearly denotes the order of events; remember, when the chronology is clear because of terms such as "before/after/when/earlier/later"…" or because of clear mention of dates, use past perfect tense is not required, though not incorrect either.

C: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun “army” with the plural pronoun “they”; please remember, collective nouns (such as “army” in this sentence) are always singular. Further, Option C needlessly uses the past perfect tense verb “had been”, rendering it needlessly wordy and awkward; this usage is unnecessary, as the word “previous” clearly denotes the order of events; remember, when the chronology is clear because of terms such as "before/after/when/earlier/later"…" or because of clear mention of dates, use past perfect tense is not required, though not incorrect either.

D: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun “army” with the plural pronoun “their”; please remember, collective nouns (such as “army” in this sentence) are always singular.

E: Correct. This answer choice avoids the pronoun error seen in Options A, B, C, and D, as it employs no pronouns. Further, Option D is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

Hence, E is the best answer choice.

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

This is the modified version of the OG topic, given below.

Although Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than they had in their previous campaigns, it had provisions for only twenty-four days.

(A) they had in their previous campaigns
(B) their previous campaigns had had
(C) they had for any previous campaign
(D) in their previous campaigns
(E) for any previous campaign

The correct answer for the above original version is E, which is indisputable, because it is OG’s OA.

In the new version all the plural pronouns have been changed to singular pronouns. But still the OG’s correct answer namely E remains, since both choices are verbatim the same. The other choices are null and void, since no GMAT questions will have two correct answers.


But to go deep into the topic, this is a question of comparisons. More supplies are being compared with the army in A and C, campaigns in B. The comparison should be from campaign to campaign. It cannot be between the Russian campaign on one hand and all the campaigns put together on the other hand. This is like saying Simla apple has more nutrients than in other apples, an unequal comparison.So, D is gone. This leaves us with E, where campaign to campaign is compared.

Hi there,

Let’s stick to the official question that reads:

Although Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than they had in their previous campaigns, it had provisions for only twenty-four days.

Error Analysis:

1. Plural pronoun “they” does not agree in number with singular “army”.
2. This sentence compares “supplies” with “army”. This is not logical.

PoE:

(A) they had in their previous campaigns: Incorrect for the reasons stated above.

(B) their previous campaigns had had: Incorrect.
1. Repeats the pronoun error of choice A.
2. “supplies” has been compared with “their previous campaigns”.

(C) they had for any previous campaign: Incorrect. Repeats all the errors of choice A.

(D) in their previous campaigns: Incorrect. Plural pronoun “their” does not agree in number with singular “army”.

(E) for any previous campaign: Correct. The structure here is: …far more supplies than (supplies) for any previous campaign…

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

what is the usage of For over here ?
OG Says. "In the context of supplies for a campaign, the preposition for is preferable to the preposition in"
Please explain in detail with few examples .

Basically every option that includes plural is wrong because "Army" is a collective noun so it is singular.
In "D." their has no antecedent .

Option "E" is perfectly correct and is parallel as it uses "for ...."

Hope it is clear

Dear Abid,

Thank you for your query.

We can surely discuss the use of "for" in the correct sentence. However, before we do so, I would like to request you to kindly me send your meaning and error analysis of the original sentence. If, while solving the question, you marked some other choice as the correct answer, then I would like to request you to kindly post your analysis of that choice as well. Your analyses will provide me with an opportunity to understand your thought process and guide the discussion accordingly. Hope you'll appreciate the same.

Also, I would like to recommend that you go through the full-length video solution to this question. It is available on our blog here:https://e-gmat.com/blogs/?cat=45&paged=4



Thanks,

Neeti.

Hi Experts,

I understand why E is correct because of the pronoun issue. I have a comparison question for choice D:

If I re-write choice D as (pronoun issue fixed):
Although Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than in its previous campaigns, it had provisions for only twenty-four days.

Would this be correct? Based on my understanding we can infer choice D as follows:

Although Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than (supplies it had) in its previous campaigns, it had provisions for only twenty-four days.

I am trying to understand if there is any other error in D apart from the pronoun issue.

Thanks for your help!

I could be wrong, but I don't have a problem with your revised version of the sentence. I suppose we could argue that the "for its previous campaigns" would be a little bit more direct: "supplies for its previous campaigns" seems cleaner than "supplies [it had] in its previous campaigns," but I don't think that your version is explicitly wrong. And it's hard for me to imagine that another official question would torture you over the difference between "for its previous campaigns" and "in its previous campaigns."

I hope this helps!

Hi eGmat Team,

Could you explain why "It" in question stimulus can not refer to Russia.
In my opinion sentences make sense.

Russia had provisions for only twenty-four days.
Army had provisions for only twenty-four days.


Regards,

If a pronoun that is the subject of a clause has two possible antecedents, of which one is the subject of another clause in the sentence, then by virtue of parallelsim the subject pronoun would unambigously refer to the subject antecedent.

Here you would observe that "it" and "army" are both subjects ("Russia" is not a subject), and hence "it" must refer to "army".

Doesn't E need s for any campaign's'?
I have learned it must be plural noun with any...

"Any" can be followed by a singular noun in certain contexts.

In this case, the comparison being made is between the supplies associated with this campaign and the supplies associated with any other (or previous) campaign, meaning that, no matter which single previous campaign we choose, there would be more supplies associated with the Russian campaign than were associated with that "previous campaign."

Now here's a context in which "any" has to be followed by a plural noun.

They looked all over but didn't see any wolves.

This, of course, would also be correct.

I was very thirsty, but there wasn't any water left.

GMATNinja
But "Army" is also used as "plural" in grammar. So, why don't we consider "Army" as "Plural" in this SC? I appreciate your help sir.
Thanks__

Well, even if you think that "army" is plural in general, the non-underlined portion tells us that "army" is singular in this sentence! Right after the comma, we have "it had provisions...". That singular pronoun "it" must refer to "army", so we know that army is singular.

We can't refer to army with a plural pronoun in one part of the sentence and then with a singular pronoun in another part, so (A), (B), and (C) are out.

Dear GMATNinja, thank you very much for your detailed explanation. You wrote that in order to grasp its meaning more clearly, we could read choice E as below – with it had after than:

E. Although Napoleon’s army entered Russia with far more supplies than it had for any previous campaign...

Could you, please, elaborate on the issue I have with the above revised version? The sentence compares supplies with supplies. On the left we have far more supplies, which lacks a verb. So, for the sake of parallelism, we can’t have a verb on the right side either, can we? Isn’t it had incorrect in this case?

I thought the correct choice circumvents a verb exactly for this reason.

Many thanks for your answer in advance.

Good question! Bear in mind that when evaluating a comparison, the most important thing to consider is whether the comparison is clear and logical. For example:

Tim disappointed his children more often in 2019 than in 2012, as neither of his kids was alive yet in 2012.

Note that the prepositional phrase "in 2019" modifies when Tim disappointed his children. Logically, the prepositional phrase "in 2012" is performing the same function, so we're effectively comparing how often Tim disappointed his kids in 2019 to how often he disappointed his kids in 2012, even though the verb "disappointed" isn't repeated in the second part of the comparison. Rather, it's implied. This is fine because the logic is clear.

It's kind of the same situation here:

Napoleon’s army entered Russia with far more supplies than for any previous campaign.

Now, the prepositional phrase, "with far more supplies" is modifying the clause "Napoleon's army entered Russia." By extension, the prepositional phrase, "for any previous campaign" is modifying another action performed by Napoleon's army, namely, what supplies it had. Because the comparison is logical, this is okay.

If you feel skeptical about whether the implied "it had" is obvious, I'm with you. But because it makes sense for the prepositional phrases to play the same role, and because every other answer choice has a definitive error, this option is clearly the best of the bunch.

So two big takeaways here:

1) If you have a comparison in which each part of the comparison contains a prepositional phrase, it's fair to assume the prepositional phrases are playing similar roles.

2) If you have an answer choice that seems a little unclear, but there's no definitive, concrete error you can identify, hold on to it. If the other options are all clearly incorrect, you've got your answer, because sentence correction is about selecting the best of the bunch, not finding the perfect sentence.

I hope that helps! (And Happy Holidays!)

daagh

Can you please explain how you are arriving at the comparisons in options A and C?