In the minds of many people living in England, before Australia was Au

In the minds of many people living in England, before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes, the
opposite pole to civilization, an obscure and unimaginable place that was considered the end of the world.

(A) before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes
'it' refers to Australia, and the meaning is clear. Before Australia was a country, the land was the antipodes.

(B) before there was Australia, it was the antipodes
It sounds as if the land itself never existed. 'it' is ambiguous

(C) it was the antipodes that was Australia
Australia, the opposite pole to civilization. It sounds as if Australia is the opposite pole to civilization.

(D) Australia was what was the antipodes
Just awkward. This doesn't even make sense.

(E) Australia was what had been known as the antipodes
I found this answer choice hard to cross off at first, but the use of past perfect tense is wrong here. Using past perfect tense, Australia is no longer once known as antipodes. Australia is still the country once known as antipodes.

In the minds of many people living in England, before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes, the opposite pole to civilization, an obscure and unimaginable place that was considered the end of the world.
(A) before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes
(B) before there was Australia, it was the antipodes
(C) it was the antipodes that was Australia
(D) Australia was what was the antipodes
(E) Australia was what had been known as the antipodes

Background : Australia was discovered after a very long time on Earth and England used to refer Australia as the opposite pole to civilization - i.e. opposite to North Pole. Antipodes means the opposite pole i.e. South Pole. Australia was considered obscure, unimaginable place and end of the world.

Now back to SC.

B : "there" is considered passive in gmat. OUT
C : antipodes was not Australia. There is a meaning change. antipodes and Australia are not interchangeable. OUT
D : what is an awkward way to refer to Australia. OUT
E : what is an awkward way to refer to Australia. OUT

A : means that before Australia was known, it was called the antipodes. Bulls eye.

Hence A

Sarai

Can you clarify what does the 'if' in red refer to?

In the minds of many people living in England, before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes, the opposite pole to civilization, an obscure and unimaginable place that was considered the end of the world.

Can you please discuss some approach for finding the antecedents for the pronouns?
I used to be confident about these errors but not any more.

Thanks

Hi nusmavrik-- yes, although i'm not sure what you mean by "contradiction", you seem to have understood the problem with B and D.

Regarding C, I forgot to mention one more grammatical note! Always, when the words after the underlined portion are descriptive, whatever those words describe must be the last word in your answer. Thus, only an answer ending with "antipodes" can be correct.




Hi papillon86, your question plagues many GMAT students! The"it" in red refers to Australia.

There are two ways to use "it".

1) "It" can be used a general subject that only acts as a place-holder and does not refer to anything.

Ex. It is raining. / It is cold outside. / It was nice of you to come. / It is the red pen, not the black pen, that I want.

Compare those sentences to the following: "If you read every day, it will help you on the exam." This sentence is INCORRECT. Can you tell why? When you say, "It will help you," you mean that there is SOMETHING that will help you. The 'something' is the referent that must appear in the sentence for the sentence to be correct. In the sentence, "it is raining," there is no THING that is raining. "It" here is just holding the place of subject since English demands that every verb have a subject.

So you just have to ask yourself whether there is a THING that does the verb whose subject is "it". If there is no THING, then you don't need a referent.

Let me know if this is still confusing to you.

Best,
Sarai

If this helped, kindly give Kudos!

One more GMAX tip for pronoun reference: ALWAYS REPLACE THE PRONOUN WITH THE WORD YOU THINK IT MEANS AS YOU READ.

In this way you can 'hear' whether your "it" is trying to refer to something. This is also how you check for singular/plural/and presence of a referent as you go.

aragonn generis hazelnut GMATNinja broall daagh AjiteshArun

I rejected C,
as there is modifier issue Australia, the opposite pole to civilization, an obscure and unimaginable place that was considered the end of the world.
It is the antipodes not the Australia
D and E rejected as there is structure erroe
What + verb is a structure of a question well but here it a senetence
There should be a subject between what and the verb ?
Why B is wrong I am unable to understand can you please brief on that ?

1. What can be followed by just a verb. For example:

They asked him what needed to be done.

2. The problem with B is that the it doesn't seem to be clearly pointing to anything, because Australia is inside the before there was Australia bit. This is not something that can be generalized easily, but that part of the sentence is just giving us a time reference, so the it is not expected to point to something within that time reference. For example:

Before there was a local newspaper, it was hard to get any news about the city.

Here the it has something to point to (to get...), but it is definitely not pointing to a local newspaper. That's why the it in it was the antipodes is so unclear.

AjiteshArun
Can you please brief if what can be followed by verb why D and E is wrong ?

Pronoun reference is a tricky topic for sure, and definitely not as easy as a lot of people think Even in this sentence, we might have to change our approach if the sentence were different. But for now, think about what would happen if we had gone with

Before 2015, it was hard to get any news about the city.

The before 2015 part is just giving you an idea of the time when whatever the rest of the sentence is saying was applicable. The same thing applies to

Before there was a local newspaper, it was hard to get any news about the city.

The it here has nothing to do with a local newspaper.

Options D and E completely mess up on the meaning front: we want to say that before people really knew about some place, they thought it was the antipodes. The whole before... business is missing in D and E.

Choice A is best, for A alone makes clear that the land now known as Australia was considered the antipodes before it was developed. In B, it has no logical referent, because the previous clause describes a time when there was no Australia. Nor does it have a referent in C: substituting Australia for it produces a nonsensical statement. D is wordy, with the unnecessary what was, and imprecise in suggesting that Australia was considered the antipodes after it became Australia. E similarly distorts the original meaning, and the past perfect had been is inconsistent with the past tense used to establish a time frame for the rest of the sentence. Hence, A is the answer.

nice explanation.........in option E, if "was" is replaced by "is" .........will then the choice be "E"??

GMATNinja sir can you explain the difference in option a and e I'm stuck between a and e

This sentence is about "many people living in England" in the past. Adding an is there will make it seem as if the sentence is about people in England now. Also, it won't fix the problem that "had been known" leads to.

Dear AnthonyRitz IanStewart GMATGuruNY AjiteshArun VeritasPrepBrian MartyTargetTestPrep egmat,

I still do not understand why choice B. is wrong.

According to the correct choice A. "it" refers to "Australia"
(A) before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes

Why can't "it" in choice B. also refers to "Australia" as well?
(B) before there was Australia, it was the antipodes

It's the two words before "was" that are the parallel terms:

before there was Australia, it was the antipodes

This is wrong, as Ajitesh has already perfectly explained above, so you can refer to his post for more detail. The other tutor reply at the top of the thread seems to miss the point though -- that reply claims B is wrong because it says Australia did not exist at some point in time. But that's true -- the country, the national identity of 'Australia', did not exist in, say, the year 1300. There's no meaning problem if you say that. Even the correct answer says that (the second 'Australia' in the phrase "before Australia was Australia" is referring to the national identity 'Australia', not the land mass of 'Australia').

Dear AnthonyRitz IanStewart GMATGuruNY MartyTargetTestPrep VeritasPrepBrian egmat AjiteshArun ccooley DmitryFarber GMATNinja egmat,

I have 2 questions on the correct choice A.

In the minds of many people living in England, before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes, the opposite pole to civilization, an obscure and unimaginable place that was considered the end of the world.

Q1. Do both red and blue part modify the antipodes?
I have rarely seen a construction like this one.

Q2. Does "it" refer to the land mass of 'Australia'? "it" does NOT refer to the national identity 'Australia', right?

varotkorn

Yes on both counts. This is a bit more fanciful a sentence than we typically see, but yes, you can stack one noun modifier on top of another as long as the meaning is clear enough. I can say "Dmitry's advice is pure wisdom, a breath of fresh air, a bane in these troubled times." You might prefer to make that into a list by putting "and" before the final item, but it can be read as a series of modifiers without our losing track of the meaning, so it can stay. And any time you want to say that kind of thing about me, feel free.