For the first time in the modern era, non-Hispanic Whites are official

Hi GMATNinja is it okay to reject E, because 'it' has no clear referent?

Guys,

There is nothing called wordy in SC. These are all misleading statements.

We all know why we dont choose A B or C. Between D and E. We choose D because E changes the meaning of the sentence. If you look closely, E says it has come down by three quarters where as it should be down from nearly three quarters since it has been compared to one half.

Does that make sense?

Thanks,
Akash

Hi Nishat,

Yes, for most part, your analysis is correct. In choice C, usage of that is incorrect as that cannot refer to a clause. So I would not say that this choice removes the causality. I would say that this choice presents the causality in an ungrammatical manner.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

A and b are wrong because a comma before which indiacates it is referring to the antecedent which is california here whereas not referring to the non-hispanic whites so teh usage of which is wrong here.D on the other hand,is precise and to the point.

In general, you want to try to avoid eliminating an answer choice solely because a pronoun is ambiguous, since pronoun ambiguity is not an absolute rule. (More on that in this video.) But if a pronoun has no logical referent at all, then you can eliminate that answer choice with confidence.

Take another look at (E): "For the first time in the modern era, non-Hispanic Whites are officially a minority in California amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from what it was a decade ago by nearly three-quarters." First, "it" seems to refer to the noun phrase "half the population." If we substitute the referent in place of the pronoun, we get the notion that half the population is down from what half the population was a decade ago. That makes no sense.

Even worse, if we argue that "it" refers to the "population," the meaning seems to be that the non-Hispanic white population was reduced by three-quarters. The author isn't saying that 75% of the white population was wiped out! Rather, we want to communicate the idea that the fraction of the population comprised by non-Hispanic Whites went from three quarters to a little less than a half, as (D) suggests.

Takeaway: it's not necessarily a crime to have an ambiguous pronoun, but there has to be something the pronoun can logically refer to. If there isn't, we can confidently eliminate the option in question.

I hope that helps!

Some good points are being made in this thread about how modifiers can describe either nouns or noun phrases. The most common application of this on the GMAT is with prepositional phrases and noun-specific modifiers:

noun + prepositional phrase (preposition + noun) + relative clause/appositive

We normally think of relative clauses ("wh-" and "that) and appositives (noun phrases) as modifying the closest noun, but they can also modify an entire noun phrase. In other words, they can describe the noun from the prepositional phrase OR the noun the prepositional phrase describes.

There's a lot of discussion going on about whether or not "a minority in California" is a noun phrase, and whether or not the relative clause in A and B can describe "a minority" as well as California. However, it doesn't matter for this problem. Do we want to say that "a minority" is a little less than 1/2 the population of the state, but it used to be 3/4 the population of the state? That doesn't make sense — how could "a minority" have been 3/4 the population of the state? That's the opposite of what minority means! So the relative clause shouldn't describe either "California" or "a minority".

To make this sentence logical, we want to say that "non-Hispanic whites" make up a little less than 1/2 the population of the state, but used to make up 3/4 the population of the state. "Non-Hispanic whites" are separated from the relative clause by a verb "are), so there's no way they're part of a noun phrase the relative clause could modify. In fact, "Non-Hispanic whites" is the subject of the sentence. Thus, we don't want a relative clause — we want a participial phrase ("-ing" or -"ed") because it can modify the subject of the sentence.

It's important to know the subtleties of modifier rules, but it's just as important to think about meaning. Be sure to figure out what you think the sentence should say before getting too lost in the weeds of complicated grammatical issues.

Some good points are being made in this thread about how modifiers can describe either nouns or noun phrases. The most common application of this on the GMAT is with prepositional phrases and noun-specific modifiers:

noun + prepositional phrase (preposition + noun) + relative clause/appositive

We normally think of relative clauses ("wh-" and "that) and appositives (noun phrases) as modifying the closest noun, but they can also modify an entire noun phrase. In other words, they can describe the noun from the prepositional phrase OR the noun the prepositional phrase describes.

There's a lot of discussion going on about whether or not "a minority in California" is a noun phrase, and whether or not the relative clause in A and B can describe "a minority" as well as California. However, it doesn't matter for this problem. Do we want to say that "a minority" is a little less than 1/2 the population of the state, but it used to be 3/4 the population of the state? That doesn't make sense — how could "a minority" have been 3/4 the population of the state? That's the opposite of what minority means! So the relative clause shouldn't describe either "California" or "a minority".

To make this sentence logical, we want to say that "non-Hispanic whites" make up a little less than 1/2 the population of the state, but used to make up 3/4 the population of the state. "Non-Hispanic whites" are separated from the relative clause by a verb "are), so there's no way they're part of a noun phrase the relative clause could modify. In fact, "Non-Hispanic whites" is the subject of the sentence. Thus, we don't want a relative clause — we want a participial phrase ("-ing" or -"ed") because it can modify the subject of the sentence.

It's important to know the subtleties of modifier rules, but it's just as important to think about meaning. Be sure to figure out what you think the sentence should say before getting too lost in the weeds of complicated grammatical issues.

As per my understanding, "," + -ing modifer can modify the action/ verb only if the doer of both the main verb and the -ing action verb is same. However, in this case it is not the same.