Many doctors warn patients that if traditional methods for diagnosis a

Many doctors warn patients that if traditional methods for diagnosis and homeopathic pharmaceuticals are relied upon exclusively, they will not always be capable of effectively addressing their illness.

A traditional methods for diagnosis and homeopathic pharmaceuticals are relied upon exclusively, they will not always be

B homeopathic pharmaceuticals and traditional methods for diagnosis are relied upon exclusively, this will not always be

C traditional methods for diagnosis and homeopathic pharmaceuticals are relied upon exclusively, these interventions are not always

D homeopathic pharmaceuticals and traditional methods for diagnosis are relied upon exclusively, these interventions were not always

E homeopathic pharmaceuticals and traditional methods for diagnosis are relied upon exclusively, not always are they

This question is based on the rule of IF...THEN... construct
IF present tense THEN present/future tense

D is straight elimination
In B what doe this refer to ... totally illogical
in E usage of they is not clear whether referring to doctors or homeopathic pharmaceuticals and traditional methods
same is the case with A

C is clear winner as it explicitly mentions
these interventions removing any scope of ambiguity

Hello experts

Would answer choice "A" be correct if it had the following structure:-
traditional methods for diagnosis and homeopathic pharmaceuticals are relied upon exclusively,THESE INTERVENTIONS WILL NOT ALWAYS BE.........................illness

Thanks

In option C after comma the sentence contains an independent clause 'these interventions are..' and by the grammer rule two independent clauses cannot be separated by a comma.So how C can be correct?

Posted from my mobile device

In option C, part after comma is not an independent clause rather it is a dependent clause.hence option C is correct.

Thanks

Sentence formation is: IF...THEN...
IF present tense THEN present/future tense

Here from the non-underlined sentence ,doctors are sharing fact about a situation. In such cases then clause should have Simple present tense.
As B,D & E are easy to eliminate. B/w A & C, as A is simple future, Choice C is the correct choice with simple present tense

they will not always be capable of effectively addressing "THEIR" illness. What is their referring to here. I believe its definitely patients.
I think their is wrong here because of ambiguity between doctors and patients. If it is referring to patients doesn't they refer the same?

generis

Hi generis,

I was hoping if you could help me with a possible explanation for choosing C over A.

Thanks in advance!

krishnabalu , I'm slightly confused. Option (C) is correct. You seem to be talking about (A).

Their illness refers unambiguously to the patients' illness.
The patients are ill. The doctors are not ill.

They is ambiguous because there are two plural elements to what the doctors issue a warning about:

(1) traditional methods for diagnosis

AND

(2)homeopathic pharmaceuticals.

When doctors warn that they will fail at times, by "they," do the doctors mean (1) or (2) or both?

Hope that helps.

Posted from my mobile device

Sourav700 ,

I can see your point. Good question.

I am not a huge fan of (C) because this sort of statement does not seem to be a general truth. (General truths are zero conditionals, in which we use IF simple present, THEN simple present).

To issue warnings, we typically use Type 1 conditionals (IF simple present, THEN simple future). Type 1 conditionals are a statement about a condition in reality and its probable result.

So my native ear preferred "will not always be" in Option A to "are not always" in Option C.

Option A suffers from pronoun ambiguity. Does they refer to (1) traditional methods for diagnosis? To (2) homeopathic pharmaceuticals? To both?

Look at the weird contrast in the advice. We would expect the doctors to warn against NON-traditional methods for diagnosis. The doctors do not trust homeopathic (read: non-traditional) drugs.

More than one logical antecedent exists, a state of affairs that is textbook ambiguity.

We get down to A and C.
Option C uses these interventions. (WHICH interventions? Homeopathic drugs? Traditional methods for diagnosis?)

Although I am not convinced that (C) is any clearer than (A), GMAC prefers any kind of specificity to any kind of ambiguity.

Is demonstrative these (interventions) any clearer than they? Not really. I still don't know whether the doctors warn against (1) or (2) or both.

This question was a really close call.

I'm not sure what "these interventions" means, but it's a noun phrase.
It's a confusing noun phrase.

Nonetheless, a named noun is better than an ambiguous pronoun even if the named noun is better in form only.

By a hair's width, option A wins. There cannot be multiple logical antecedents for a single pronoun. Fuzzy noun referent? Not as bad as pronoun ambiguity.

Hope that helps.

Posted from my mobile device

Thanks for picking it Generis.
I am back to square one and confused.. Isn't they in A refer to doctors (as they should refer to subject which is "many doctors"). Similarly the word "THEIR illness".
Their a possessive form of they, doesn't they and their refer to same thing.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.