Hi arirux92, Please have a look at my view below:

If there is one pronoun and one possible noun antecedent, it does not matter whether the noun antecedent and the pronoun are both subjects, both objects or one subject/ one object. In such case, a pronoun subject of one clause may refer to a noun object of another clause. On the other hand, a pronoun object of one clause may refer to a noun subject of another clause.

However ambiguity may arise when there are 2 antecedents and 1 pronoun. Nonetheless, if there is one pronoun subject in one clause and one possible noun antecedent in subject and one possible noun antecedent in object in another clause, the subject pronoun would unambiguously refer to the subject noun by virtue of parallelism. In your example the pronoun it unambiguously refers to bull - this usage is accepted in GMAT.

In the question above, ambiguity does not arise at all (between archaeologists and inscription), since there is one pronoun it and only one possible (singular) antecedent inscription. It is not wrong that the pronoun is subject in one clause and the antecedent is in predicate of another.

Please note that ambiguity may still arise between crypt and inscription. However because of the relative distances of the nouns inscription and crypt from the pronoun it - moreover crypt is in an altogether separate subordinate clause starting with that - the pronoun it still refers, although slightly ambiguously to inscription. This usage is also acceptable and although slightly ambiguous, not sufficient to eliminate an answer.

Although partially destroyed, the archaeologists were able to infer from what remained of the inscription that the priest Zonainos was buried in the crypt.
(A) Although partially destroyed, the archaeologists were able to infer
wrong modifier. " partially destroyed " modifies "the archaeologists" in this case.
(B) Although partially destroyed, the archaeologists had inferred
wrong modifier. " partially destroyed " modifies "the archaeologists" in this case.
(C) Although it had been partially destroyed, the archaeologists were able to infer
Correct
(D) Partially destroyed though it had been, the archaeologists had been able to infer
Wrong tense. Past perfect indicates sth happens before sth else in the past.
(E) Destroyed partially, the archaeologists were able to infer
wrong modifier. " partially destroyed " modifies "the archaeologists" in this case.

Its not the archaeologists who are destroyed. So I am only looking to remove the ambiguity by either providing what is destroyed, or clarifying the noun / pronoun that the modifier applies to.

C is correct: uses correct tense with proper clarity

I am confused with times in the OA C:
"it had been partially destroyed" and then "the priest Zonainos was buried in the crypt"

It seems that the crypt was destroyed before Zonainos was buried...

could you explain?

thank!

Although it had been partially destroyed, the archaeologists were able to infer


It was destroyed before the archaeologists were able to infer. Not before the Zonainos was buried.


I hope this helps!!

To solve, You can ignore the last modifier. Sentence is Although it had been partially destroyed, the archaeologists were able to infer from what remained of the inscription

Now onto your question
inscription that the priest Zonainos was buried in the crypt describes the matter on inscription
the priest Zonainos was buried in the crypt - actual words written - this is what is inscribed.

I would go for C

Correct use of Tense and correct subject-verb agreement

Bumping for review and further discussion*.

*New project from GMAT Club!!! Check HERE

C is no doubt the best among the lot, but a doubt.

Here "it" should be referring to the inscription, but it's the object in the second sentence. Is it correct? I don't think so.


Look at "it" this way:

Even though it was big, the bull still found a way through the hole.

So isn't "it" confusing here?

Is it referring to the bull or the hole?

I believe this question is wrong.

Old question though want to have discussion on this. Clearly all other choices are bad, but C is not the best way to say this.
_________________

There is no reason for past perfect(a past action interrupted by another action) . Hence, B and D are out.

In A and E the first part of the sentence modifies the archaeologists. wrong.

IMO C
_________________

If this would have been the sentence "Although it had been partially destroyed, the archaeologist was able to infer", then what would "it" refer to now, as "it" is singular Pronoun subject and "archaeologist" is singular pronoun subject.

PS: Just want to clear this concept.
sayantanc2k

Although partially destroyed, the archaeologists were able to infer from what remained of the inscription that the priest Zonainos was buried in the crypt.

Here "although..." is in phrase form, hence, it shall be talking about certain things.
So, what can be destroyed?
The archaeologists? NO
the inscription? YES


The phrase not talking about the archaeologists
Incorrect


Same as A
Incorrect


"it" can refer to the inscription or the crypt.
But a bit of ambiguity is acceptable in GMAT. Still, if C is the best of all options then only we will mark it, so hold on to C.


Incorrect verb sequence in past perfect. Destruction of the inscription/ crypt must be before the inference by the archaeologists.
Incorrect


Same as A.
Incorrect.

Hence, C is best of all.
_________________