Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide th

Hello Arthurito,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, it is not necessary that two linked clauses share a subject; so, if the subject of one clause is a pronoun, that pronoun need not refer to the subject of the other clause.

For example, "Mary's husband is a doctor, so she is very health conscious."

Here, the subject of the first clause is "Mary's husband", and the subject of the second clause is "she", which refers to "Mary".

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team.
_________________

I'm with you here: the "they" isn't the problem with (A). (And pronoun ambiguity isn't a concrete error, so it should be way way down on your list of priorities, as discussed in this video.)

The bigger problem is the logic of the construction. "Because" suggests a causal relationship between the clauses. But the stripped-down clauses here are:

• "Because there are provisions..."
• "they have already stimulated international disputes..."

But that's not quite right. The provisions caused international disputes... because "there are provisions?" Nah. It makes way more sense to write that the maritime code stimulated disputes because of what the provisions in the code do.

Contrast the above meaning with the two clauses we get in (B):

• "Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims..."
• "it has already stimulated international disputes."

This time, the causal relationship is clear. Why is the code causing disputes? Because the provisions in the code say that any tiny islet can be the basis of a claim. This is clear and logical, and better than (A).

The takeaway: you're right! The pronoun ambiguity is not the main problem with (A).

I hope that helps!
_________________

(A) Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated
-provisions provide? Sounds great
-"they have already stimulated" - not clear what "they" refers to. Islets? Provisions?

(B) Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated
- Hmm... Cant't find anything wrong. Let's keep it. I look more cautiously at "it" in "it has already stimulated", but it seems that it can refer only to "maritime code", so everything is clear.

(C) Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating
- Not sure what can be "already stimulating". The code is already stimulating? Claims?

(D) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, this has already stimulated
-What does "this" refer to? It also sounds weird overall "Because X, this has already stimulated Y". I would say "Because I don't like yellow, I painted my house white" rather than "Because I don't like yellow, this has made me paint my house white".

(E) Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, which is already stimulating
- The overall sound of the sentence seems to be missing something. What happens "because even tiny islets..."?

The most difficult choice was at the end of the day between B and D.

I understand why all the other answer choices are wrong but in choice B, can't "it" refer to the noun "the basis" as well as "the new maritime code"?

Please help!
GMATNinja

Hello sirglane,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, there is no pronoun ambiguity in Option B because it makes little to no logical sense to say that the conceptual basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas has stimulated dispute; remember, pronoun ambiguity does not apply if there is only one noun that a pronoun can logically refer to.

To understand the concept of "Exceptions to Pronoun Ambiguity" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

Two things to keep in mind:

1) Pronoun ambiguity isn't a concrete error. If the pronoun in question could logically refer to some noun in the sentence, it's okay.
2) When a pronoun is the subject of a clause, the most logical place to look for the referent is the subject of the previous clause.

Here, the subject of the first clause is "the new maritime code," and the subject of the second is "it." According to this construction, the new maritime code has stimulated disputes. That makes sense, so the pronoun isn't a problem.

I hope that clears things up!
_________________

Hi GMATNinja,

If Option (B) did not exist, would you still say Option (A) was definitely incorrect?

I got down to Option (A) and (B) and just picked (B) over (A) for the following reasons -

i) Did not like "that provide that" structure
ii) The sentence might seems better with "maritime code" as the subject

Is there anything else particularly that you would call a "definite elimination" in Option (A)?

Thanks.

-Aum

There's no reason to worry about this scenario. We have a better option than (A), so there's no reason to pick (A)!

To be clear, there's no concrete grammar error in (A). So is there a world in which (B) didn't exist and so (A) could have been the right answer?

I highly doubt it, because (A) is illogical for the reason we outlined in the previous post. I suppose you could make an argument that it's the least terrible of the remaining options, but again, there's no reason to do this exercise. The test might give us a correct answer that sounds goofy. But the correct answer has to make sense logically. Period. And (A) doesn't make a ton of sense.

I hope that clears things up!
_________________

For anyone who is confused by choice C):
According to the great Ron Purewal:
two problems with that choice:

1) when you use a COMMA -ING modifier after a clause**, you should actually satisfy TWO requirements:
-- the modifier should modify the action of the preceding clause, as you have stated;
AND
-- the subject of the preceding clause should also make sense as the agent of the -ING action.

Question 1:
I have a question on empowergmatverbal's explanation as to why Choice A is incorrect.

"We need to rule this out as INCORRECT because the pronoun "they" is vague! There are several plural nouns that we could pair this up with: provisions, islets, fisheries, and oil fields. Any time you have a pronoun that could apply to several nouns, get rid of it."

How do we know whether the author intended for the subject to be the "provisions of the code" or "the new maritime code"? Is A incorrect just because it is more wordy? (e.g., "that provide that" and the sentence is in past tense e.g., "have already" when present tense is preferred on the GMAT)


Question 2:
For answer Choice C, Empowergmatverbal's explanation says that the reader might think that "already simulating" modifies the "even tiny islets", but because it is a comma -ing modifier, everything is modified before it and not just the "even tiny islets". It also seems clear to me what causes the disputes based on GMATNinja's explanation. Unfortunately, I am still confused. Any further explanations on this would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your help.

Well, the most straightforward way to eliminate choice A is to notice that it contains both provisions and provide, which together are redundant (...a redundancy that ought to be less challenging to find than most others, because we have two forms of the same word!)



Also, choice A is wrong because it says something that doesn't make literal sense.

If "Because X, Y" (or, equivalently, "Y because X") is a workable sentence, then, if "Why Y?" is posed as a question, "[Because] X" needs to make perfectly literal sense as an answer.

This formulation DOES make literal sense:
"Why has the code stimulated disputes? [Because] it provides that tiny little islands can be the basis of huge claims."
—> Because the new code provides that tiny islands can be the basis for huge claims, it has stimulated disputes.

This formulation does NOT make literal sense:
"Why have some provisions of the new code stimulated disputes? [Because] there are some provisions that provide/state that tiny little islands can be the basis of huge claims."
—> (this is choice A)
Huh? Provisions of the new code have stimulated disputes because there are some provisions? That doesn't work. (The actual reason needs to be the main clause of the sentence following "because". This isn't something you should memorize; it's just another instance of "The sentence should say what it means and mean what it says.")

A comma + _ING modifier actually has to modify the action of the preceding clause—which means that the "_ING" MUST happen IN THE SAME TIMEFRAME AS the action of the main clause. (You may want to memorize this, but it should be clear enough if you just think carefully and literally about exactly what it means to describe an action: The description can't possibly fall into any timeframe other than that of the action itself!)

Causal relationships, therefore, can only be described with comma+_ING modifiers if the causation is IMMEDIATE, without even the slightest delay.

E.g..,
The pedestrian was struck by a bus, dying instantly from the impact.
—> This sentence WORKS, because the causation is "instant"—meaning that both parts of the sentence are telling you about exactly the same event that happened at exactly the same time.

vs.
The pedestrian was struck by a bus, dying in the hospital an hour later.
—> This sentence DOES NOT WORK. The comma+_ING part describes something that didn't happen until an hour after the action of the main clause, so it doesn't actually describe/modify the action of the main clause.


The comma+_ING modifier in choice C doesn't work because it's like the second of these examples. The main clause is about the content of the law itself; that statement is true starting from the very moment the law was written. The _ING modifier, on the other hand, is something that may have happened soon afterwards—but "soon afterwards" is still "afterwards".

Thank you for your response. The link between the action of the preceding clause and the comma ing modifier being immediate is new concept to me. I think of this question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/between-14-0 ... 42405.html in which the comma ing modifier does not seem to be immediate?

I also think of this example from MP in the All the Verbal Book: “Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values.” There is no time marker as to when the property values increased.

Request Expert Reply:
Hi experts,
I've a quick question for choice A. I saw most of the official questions where THAT verb THAT is wrong. So, can I just cross out any choice that holds THAT verb THAT structure like choice A?
_________________

MartyTargetTestPrep

Gently following up to see if you have any thoughts on this. Thank you again.

The two events mentioned in that sentence could have occurred at the same time.


That is not a great sentence. It conveys that, by decreasing, crime has lead to a rise in property values. That meaning doesn't make sense.
_________________

RonTargetTestPrep RonPurewal
Thanks for the superb explanation.
So how do we take it as ''afterwards''? is it because of the word 'already' that indicates the 'different timeframe'?
_________________

MartyTargetTestPrep

There seems to be some ambiguity in deciding whether the modifier could be in the same time or not for that Official Question I linked (https://gmatclub.com/forum/between-14-0 ... 42405.html). Was this just a case in which the -ing modifier was simply the best answer among the options, so by default... it must have been around the same time?

This issue seems to be similar to pronoun ambiguity on the GMAT --> thinking of my favorite pine tree question (https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-some-type ... 20379.html) in that by default, it must be correct based on other concrete issues in the other wrong answers. Thanks again, Marty THE man!

Hi RonPurewal
Here is the another official example-->


We know that Stella Adler died in 1992. So if the included actor's birth is after 1992 then the use of COMMA+_ING (adverbial modifier) in choice C will be wrong, right? As Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro born in between 1901-1992 (Stella Adler's duration), the choice C makes sense! Is it?
_________________