By the mid-seventeenth century, Amsterdam had built a new town hall so

Hey All,

Seems like people are clear on the answer here, and for what it's worth, it's pretty much an idiom issue.

By the mid-seventeenth century, Amsterdam had built a new town hall so large that only St. Peter’s in Rome, the Escorial in Spain, and the Palazza Ducale in Venice could rival it for scale or magnificence.
(A) could rival it for
ANSWER

(B) were the rivals of it in their
PROBLEM: The idiom is "X rivals Y". It's wordy and unclear to say "X is the rival of Y", because typically that would signify some kind of animosity or active competition. The idiom "X rivals Y" just means that X was as impressive as Y (or awful, or wonderful...whatever adjective you prefer). Also, using the possessive pronoun is weird, because it isn't really THEIR scale and magnificence, but the general concepts of scale and magnificence.

(C) were its rival as to
PROBLEM: Same B, but without the pronoun issue.

(D) could be its rivals in their
PROBLEM: Same as B. "Could be its rivals" is no better than "were the rivals".

(E) were rivaling its
PROBLEM: Same As B, though the possessive pronoun is singular now instead of plural.

Hope that helps!

-tommy

By <a time in the past>, A. had built an X so large that only A, B, and C...

First, there's an idiom. A, B, and C rival X for <some attributes>. If you want to use rival in verb form, you just put the X right after (or a pronoun referring to X, as in this case) and you use the preposition "for" to introduce what the attributes are.

E tries to use the verb form. But "were rivaling its" sounds like A, B, and C are rivaling "scale and magnificence." That doesn't make sense - A, B, and C are buildings and they should be rivaling some other building or buildings. Think of this as a comparison almost - you actually have to mention the two things you're comparing on either side of the comparison language.

So E is gone.

D changes the form of the word rival - now it's a noun. A, B, and C could be X's rivals in their scale and magnificence. Again, idiom issue. You could say that A, B, and C are the primary rivals of X, but you wouldn't present the attributes by which they rival X with the preposition "in." You'd say something like "A, B, and C are the primary rivals of X based upon <some attributes>." (Note: there are other words you could use besides "based upon" - eg, "due to." But not "in.")

Also, introducing the word "be" after "could" now makes it sound like someone's speculating - "hmmm, could A, B, and C rival X?" But that's not the original meaning - the original meaning is essentially saying that these guys (A, B, and C) really are the only possible rivals, not that they might be but the author's not sure.

Detailed Discussion : https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/by- ... t3595.html

rival is a verb here. So A is absolutely fine.

Still i have confusion between A and D.

Can someone explain?
Thanks in advance !!

Refer MGMAT SC , chapter on Pronouns ,it states -

Be careful with their, which is often used in everyday speech to refer to singular subjects. The most common pronoun mistakes involve Third Person Personal Pronouns— the singular it and its, together with the plural they, them, and their. Whenever you see one of these five pronouns,find the antecedent and check its viability every they, them, and their must refer to the same plural antecedent.

Here their has not clear Antecedent , hence (D) can be rejected.
_________________

But i dont see any ambiguity either.
'Their' modifies the three places if i am not wrong?
Please explain.

"Their" is not ambiguous; it clearly refers to the three landmarks. There are two major problems with B and D:

1) The language is just not idiomatic. "Could rival it" is a specific form that is often used, and "could be its rivals" in D doesn't work the same way. The buildings can't really be rivals, but one can rival the other in scale. Meanwhile, B uses a backward and unnecessarily complex structure. It's cute when kids say "You're not the boss of me," but it's not correct English usage. We can just say "You're not my boss." (Or, to use "it," we'd say "Here is my phone and here is its charger," not "Here is my phone and here is the charger of it.")

2) The use of "their" ruins the comparison. We want the 3 places to rival the town hall in scale and magnificence. We don't want them to rival the town hall in their scale and magnificence. That would be like saying "My house is better than yours in its size or comfort."
_________________

Can someone please explain the usage "could rival it for scale or magnificence" - Shouldn't it be "could rival it in scale or magnificence" ?

but in Manhattan SC Guide8 Page111, "A pronoun is a word tha takes the place of a noun". So the word THEIR takes which plural noun's place??? Why THEIR can refer to the three landmarks?DmitryFarber

The right option is A. But how can building be rival? As in how can a building actually perform the verb?

Really confused between A and D.
I get that in D, their can cause some issues but their can refer to three places. I rejected A coz of "rival for scale..........", it doesn't seem right.
Pls share your insight.
Thanks

The (D) version is definitely problematic.

For one thing, "could be its rivals" suggests that other buildings would seek to be rivals of the town hall. Buildings would either rival each other or not. They would not seek to "be rivals." So, that meaning doesn't make sense.

Also, "be rivals in their scale or magnificence" doesn't make sense since things would not "be rivals in" their characteristics.

That said, "rival it for scale or magnificence" in the (A) version doesn't really make sense either. It would be correct to say, "rival it IN scale or magnificence" meaning "rival it" IN THE AREAS OF "scale or magnificence."

So, (A) is the best of a not great set of choices, and thus this question is not a great one.
_________________

I think, both "rival for scale" and "rival in scale" are grammatically correct, but they have slightly different meanings.

"Rival for scale" means that the buildings are competing with each other in terms of scale. In this context, "scale" refers to the size or extent of the buildings. So, if we say that the new town hall in Amsterdam could rival St. Peter’s, the Escorial, and the Palazza Ducale for scale, we mean that the four buildings are in competition with each other in terms of their size or extent.

"Rival in scale" could also be grammatically correct, but it would mean something slightly different. In this context, "in scale" would mean that the buildings are similar in size or extent. So, if we say that the new town hall in Amsterdam rivals St. Peter’s, the Escorial, and the Palazza Ducale in scale, we mean that the buildings are similar in size or extent.

In the original sentence, "rival for scale" is the better choice because it conveys the idea that the new town hall in Amsterdam is competing with St. Peter’s, the Escorial, and the Palazza Ducale in terms of their size or extent.



In the context of the sentence, "rival" is being used as a verb, meaning to compete with or be equal in quality or importance. So in this case, the building itself is not performing the verb, but rather the building is being compared to other buildings in terms of its scale and magnificence.



"Rival for scale" is grammatically correct and commonly used. "For" in this context means "with regard to" or "in terms of." So the phrase "could rival it for scale or magnificence" means that the three buildings mentioned are the only ones that could match the scale or grandeur of Amsterdam's town hall with regard to their size and magnificence.

By the mid-seventeenth century, Amsterdam had built a new town hall so large that only St. Peter’s in Rome, the Escorial in Spain, and the Palazza Ducale in Venice could rival it for scale or magnificence.

Option Elimination -

(A) could rival it for - The comparison is clear. X rivals Y. X which is "St. Peter’s in Rome, the Escorial in Spain, and the Palazza Ducale in Venice" and Y is "a new town hall" and "rival" in terms of what? In terms of scale or magnificence. Also, see another cause-effect idiom in action here. "so "cause" that "effect." so "large" that"X could rival Y." So we have X and Y compared in terms of their rivalry because of scale or magnificence.

(B) were the rivals of it in their - So "St. Peter’s in Rome, the Escorial in Spain, and the Palazza Ducale in Venice" were the rivals of "a new town hall" in their "St. Peter’s in Rome, the Escorial in Spain, and the Palazza Ducale in Venice" scale? It's quite a messy way to communicate what A did pretty neatly.

(C) were its rival as to - we already have "so "cause" that "effect." This is mixing two cause-effect, which are "so "cause" that "effect" and "so "cause" as to "effect."

(D) could be its rivals in their - So "St. Peter’s in Rome, the Escorial in Spain, and the Palazza Ducale in Venice" could be "a new town hall's" rivals in their " St. Peter’s in Rome, the Escorial in Spain, and the Palazza Ducale in Venice" scale? Quite messy. Rather than using the possessive "its," we could have just compared noun "St. Peter’s in Rome, the Escorial in Spain, and the Palazza Ducale in Venice" with another noun, "a new town hall."

(E) were rivaling its - using the past continuous. Rather than using the possessive "its," we could have just compared noun "St. Peter’s in Rome, the Escorial in Spain, and the Palazza Ducale in Venice" with another noun, "a new town hall."