GMATNinja how is 'they' in option A different from the rule that pronoun of second clause unambiguously refers to the subject of the first clause as I understood from one of your webinars.

First, there's no ironclad rule about pronoun ambiguity, so you want to avoid using this as a reason to eliminate an answer choice. That said, this construction is a little different than the one referenced in the webinar.

Take another look at the relevant portion of (A):


The first clause begins with "there," one of those funky pronouns that don't have a referent. This wasn't the case in the other example. Now, you could say that "there" is simply a placeholder for the real subject, "provisions," and "they" must refer to those "provisions".

But this interpretation leads to a logical problem, as the sentence, in essence, becomes, "Because there are provisions...the provisions have already stimulated disputes." That's nonsense. I can write that because the provisions do one thing, the provisions also do something else as a consequence. But I can't write that because the provisions exist, the provisions do something as a consequence. So while I wouldn't feel confident getting rid of (A) on account of pronoun ambiguity, I'm perfectly happy to get rid of it because the meaning is incoherent.

The takeaway: pronoun ambiguity = very low priority; illogical meaning = very high priority.

I hope that helps!
_________________

dearAndrewN,
I crossed off C because "comma + ing", for me, is the simultaneous with the main verb. it is almost at the same time, while "already" shows an action prior to the main verb.

because I haven't read similar reasoning in this topic, can I cross off C based on this ?

please confirm.

thanks a lot.

Hello, zoezhuyan. I appreciate your point, and I would say that and has already stimulated (without a comma) would be a more fitting continuation than what we see. I would call this consideration of simultaneity a doubt—not necessarily grounds for elimination, but a compelling reason to seek a better alternative. The meaning puzzle that (C) introduces is a huge problem, as I have indicated above. It is unclear what, exactly, may be stimulating international disputes. Put the two considerations together, and I think you have enough to eliminate (C).

In short, I first like to eliminate answers I know are wrong; then, I start to count up lesser offenses or doubts in the answer choices that remain. I ultimately choose the answer I have the hardest time arguing against. Such an approach has served me well. I often walk away with the correct answer, and I do not have to work too hard to get it. (If I picked through every flaw or peccadillo I could find, then I would start to confuse myself and fare much worse.)

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew
_________________

Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated international disputes over uninhabited islands.

(A) Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated

(B) Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated

(C) Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating

(D) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, this has already stimulated

(E) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, which is already stimulating

I think, Provisions [modifier] that provide, can be enough reason to cut A.

Hey GMATGuruNY , AndrewN , generis , GMATNinja, AjiteshArun, Abhi077

Can the reason for elimination in option C, D and E be this:

Option C: Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating

"under provisions of the new maritime code" incorrectly modifies "oil fields of large sea areas".

Hi EuropaGust,

Yes, the usage of under... is definitely an issue, because (as you pointed out), it could modify large sea areas or fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas. The correct option does not contain such ambiguity, and therefore is better.
_________________

Hi AjiteshArun,

In option C, Why can't stimulating modify the previous main clause as the result of natural consequence. As we already know that the verb-ing need not make complete sense with the subject of the previous clause, it seems plausible that Islets being the basis for claims resulted in disputes.

Option C: Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating

Hi Deadpool3,

Good question. What we want to do here is ensure that the correct meaning is conveyed as clearly as possible.

(a) If we assume that ", stimulating" refers to the entire preceding clause, we'll end up with a sentence that isn't clear and doesn't tell us that the code is what is stimulating disputes.

(b) If we assume that ", stimulating" refers to the new maritime code, we will lose the "why" meaning that the author is trying to convey. That is, we will know that the code is stimulating disputes, but we won't know why. This is why the correct option ("Because the new code provides X, it has already stimulated Y") is much better.
_________________

"there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that"

There is a redundancy in this part of the sentence which has not been mentioned in the discussion, hence pointing it out.

provisions in a code means some clause that allows providing. And this redundancy makes option A useless

Can ing-modifier in (C) at the end modify "maritime code"? There are examples where "ing modifier" has been able to modifer in the end provided the noun is attached to it.

"The stadium is full of people, cheering for their fans." Here the sentence is correctly modifying "people". AndrewN

Absolutely, lakshya14, and I like the sample sentence you provided for consideration. (Some people would make the case that the modifier should be attached to people directly, without the comma; I would argue that the sentence could work either way.) I have written a detailed post on the various interpretations of what, exactly, the modifier is modifying in (C), all of which could be valid. The takeaway is not to follow prescriptive thinking without, well, thinking. A firm grasp of grammar basics is necessary to achieve a high level of accuracy on SC questions, but within those basics, there are a lot of side considerations, and I see too much this must be that talk in the forum concerning -ing modifiers in particular.

Thank you for thinking to ask. I hope you enjoy that other post.

- Andrew
_________________

if scope of adverb applies to all sentence, the adverb should stand at the beginning of the sentence. "under provisions..." should stand at the beginning of the main clause because if it stand at the end, it makes readers think it modifies the preceding noun ' sea area". this case is inferior not absolute rule

GMATNinja

Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated international disputes over uninhabited islands.


In the above example that refers to Maritime code or provisions. Provide is plural verb so That must be referring to Provisions. My doubt is now if we place that in any construction it refers to immediate noun which could be in prepositional phrase as in this case or it will refer to the main noun which is outside of prepositional phrase. Please help.

Thanks & Regards,
Himanshu Dixit

No rule here.

If I write, "The collection of records that is," the singular verb tells me the "that" must refer to the singular "collection."

If I write, "The collection of records that are," the plural verb tells me the "that" must refer to the plural "records."

But if I write, "The collections of records that are," well, I'm just going to have to use context to figure it out, because there are two viable options here. And if the "that" makes sense with either option I wouldn't feel comfortable treating it as a concrete error, and so I'd move on to other issues.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated international disputes over uninhabited islands.


(A) Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated
provisions=code
redundancy!

(B) Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated (OA)

(C) Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating
1. two meaning for S+V, ving
1-1. S+V, which+v
Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, which has already stimulated (sounds OK)
1-2. S1+V1, conj S1+V2
Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, tiny islets have already stimulated (sounds not ok)
2. two meaning for prep
it is supposed to mean:
S+V+O+prep
Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating
not:
S+V+(O+prep)
Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to (the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code), already stimulating

(D) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, this has already stimulated
1. two meaning for prep
it is supposed to mean:
S+V+O+prep
Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, this has already stimulated
not:
S+V+(O+prep)
Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to (the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code), this has already stimulated
2. this may not very well, but it makes sense.

(E) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, which is already stimulating
sentence fragment

A.Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated

In the above statement if the subject in the Clause 1 is "provisions of the new maritime code" , can we not not say that the THEY in the second clause( subject of the second clause) refers to the subject of the first clause ie Provisions of the new maritime code.

Hi Samikshya292,

The subject is actually there (it's a "dummy" subject).

A. Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated...

As for your question, yes, it is possible for a reader to understand what they is meant to refer to, but that's not how pronoun ambiguity works. In fact, ambiguity in general doesn't lead to clear-cut decisions. That is, we shouldn't treat it as an "absolute" rule.
_________________

Hello Samikshya292,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, the exception to pronoun ambiguity only applies when there is only one noun that the pronoun can logically refer to, even if there are multiple nouns that it can grammatically refer to; however, in this case "they" can logically refer to "provisions", "islets", "fisheries", and "oil fields", as any one of them could logically be understood to have "stimulated international disputes over uninhabited islands".

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________