Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
25 Aug 2013, 03:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
Pronoun CASE:
RULE:In particular, a pronoun in subject position in one clause may often be presumed to refer to the subject of a parallel
clause, even if that subject is relatively far away.
As you can see in RED, can we say that this rule is general or NOT?
Example:
Supernovas destroy their immediate environments in vast explosions,
BUT by synthesizing heavy chemical elements, THEY provide the universe
with the possibility of biochemistry-based life as we know it.
Explanation:Supernovas is the subject of the first clause. The they is also in subject position in the second
clause, which is parallel to the first clause. Even though there are at least two closer possible
antecedents (environments and explosions), we know that they clearly refers to supernovas.
Pronoun Ambiguity:
Researchers claim to have developed new "nano-papers" incorporating tiny
cellulose fibers, which THEY allege give THEM the strength of cast iron.
When we talk about pronoun ambiguity , I know this is not the sole criterion of eliminating a choice.
However, I need clarity on this.
When we so logical antecedent , we mean that what the author wants the reader to logically understand.
Here in the above example
(1). nano-papers cannot allege as they are not living beings.So, THEY should logically refer back to Researchers.
(2). THEM correctly refer backs to nano-papers as Researchers are not eating nano-papers in their diet so that it
would give researchers strength.
Please advise on the above.
Please clarify whether I my reasoning is correct when we apply the PRONOUN CASE Rule to this question.
THEY can refer back to "Researchers" , subject position of the previous clause.
THEM can refer back to "nano-papers", object position of the previous clause.
However, the both the clauses doesn't hold equal importance in the sentence as the clause which uses THEY and THEM is a dependent clause starting with which, thereby the RULE doesn't apply to this sentence.
Please advise
Rgds,
TGC !
RULE:In particular, a pronoun in subject position in one clause may often be presumed to refer to the subject of a parallel
clause, even if that subject is relatively far away.
As you can see in RED, can we say that this rule is general or NOT?
Example:
Supernovas destroy their immediate environments in vast explosions,
BUT by synthesizing heavy chemical elements, THEY provide the universe
with the possibility of biochemistry-based life as we know it.
Explanation:Supernovas is the subject of the first clause. The they is also in subject position in the second
clause, which is parallel to the first clause. Even though there are at least two closer possible
antecedents (environments and explosions), we know that they clearly refers to supernovas.
Pronoun Ambiguity:
Researchers claim to have developed new "nano-papers" incorporating tiny
cellulose fibers, which THEY allege give THEM the strength of cast iron.
When we talk about pronoun ambiguity , I know this is not the sole criterion of eliminating a choice.
However, I need clarity on this.
When we so logical antecedent , we mean that what the author wants the reader to logically understand.
Here in the above example
(1). nano-papers cannot allege as they are not living beings.So, THEY should logically refer back to Researchers.
(2). THEM correctly refer backs to nano-papers as Researchers are not eating nano-papers in their diet so that it
would give researchers strength.
Please advise on the above.
Please clarify whether I my reasoning is correct when we apply the PRONOUN CASE Rule to this question.
THEY can refer back to "Researchers" , subject position of the previous clause.
THEM can refer back to "nano-papers", object position of the previous clause.
However, the both the clauses doesn't hold equal importance in the sentence as the clause which uses THEY and THEM is a dependent clause starting with which, thereby the RULE doesn't apply to this sentence.
Please advise
Rgds,
TGC !
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
25 Aug 2013, 05:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
Usage of Which As per MGMAT SC Guide:
We finally chose the coffee table towards the back of the store, which we thought
would complement our living room furniture.
The original sentence is incorrect because the pronoun which refers to store. Store is an illogical
antecedent for which, because the table, not the store, is what would complement someone's living
room furniture.
My query:
"coffee table towards the back of the store" is a phrase having ADJ NOUN+ prepositional phrase.
So table blah blah(PP) , which
Doesn't it clearly refers back to table?
Because in some explanation of Official question by RON, he mentioned that
X of Y, which ... if doesn't satisfy with Y can satisfy with X
Plz Advise
Rgds,
TGC!
We finally chose the coffee table towards the back of the store, which we thought
would complement our living room furniture.
The original sentence is incorrect because the pronoun which refers to store. Store is an illogical
antecedent for which, because the table, not the store, is what would complement someone's living
room furniture.
My query:
"coffee table towards the back of the store" is a phrase having ADJ NOUN+ prepositional phrase.
So table blah blah(PP) , which
Doesn't it clearly refers back to table?
Because in some explanation of Official question by RON, he mentioned that
X of Y, which ... if doesn't satisfy with Y can satisfy with X
Plz Advise
Rgds,
TGC!
28 Aug 2013, 22:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
Researchers claim to have developed new "nano-papers" incorporating tiny cellulose fibers, which THEY allege give THEM the strength of cast iron.
In this sentence, as you say, "they" is unambiguous. However "them" IS ambiguous. "Them" could still logically refer to the researchers.
We finally chose the coffee table towards the back of the store, which we thought would complement our living room furniture.
"X of Y, which ... if doesn't satisfy with Y can satisfy with X." I haven't read the official explanation.
But what Ron probably meant by "doesn't satisy" - I think I can illustrate through this sentence itself. In the sentence as it is, the modifier modifies not "the store" but rather it modifies "the back of the store", which is still wrong. It does NOT by any means modify "the coffee table".
In this sentence, as you say, "they" is unambiguous. However "them" IS ambiguous. "Them" could still logically refer to the researchers.
We finally chose the coffee table towards the back of the store, which we thought would complement our living room furniture.
"X of Y, which ... if doesn't satisfy with Y can satisfy with X." I haven't read the official explanation.
But what Ron probably meant by "doesn't satisy" - I think I can illustrate through this sentence itself. In the sentence as it is, the modifier modifies not "the store" but rather it modifies "the back of the store", which is still wrong. It does NOT by any means modify "the coffee table".
