Last visit was: 10 May 2024, 18:54 It is currently 10 May 2024, 18:54

Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Manager
Manager
Joined: 18 Jan 2018
Posts: 96
Own Kudos [?]: 89 [0]
Given Kudos: 137
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44 (Online)
GPA: 3.98
Send PM
CEO
CEO
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 3675
Own Kudos [?]: 3529 [1]
Given Kudos: 149
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Send PM
Manager
Manager
Joined: 18 Jan 2018
Posts: 96
Own Kudos [?]: 89 [1]
Given Kudos: 137
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V44 (Online)
GPA: 3.98
Send PM
CEO
CEO
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 3675
Own Kudos [?]: 3529 [1]
Given Kudos: 149
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Send PM
Pronouns with no antecedents [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
The problem with A in the above sentence is that it is not at all clear who is likely to miss signs of incipient trouble.

So, the sentence should have been:

....makes it an executive likely to miss signs of incipient trouble

Now it is clear that an executive is likely to miss signs of incipient trouble.

p.s. Note that it cannot refer to an executive, since it can only refer to non-persons.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Mar 2021
Posts: 40
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 151
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V31
Send PM
Re: Pronouns with no antecedents [#permalink]
EducationAisle wrote:
willacethis wrote:
My question is that does GMAT have any kind of bias against these sentence structures?

No bias against such sentences at all!

By the way, in the sentence:

It is assumed that...

It actually does have an antecedent; just that the antecedent is used after the pronoun. It refers to that.....

For example:

It is assumed that hard work is good.

The sentence is equivalent to:

(that hard work is good) is assumed .

Hence, it refers to that hard work is good.

By the way, many indefinite pronouns (such as no one, everyone etc.) will not have any antecedents and that's fine.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses the cases where Pronouns are used before the antecedent, their application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.



I have a doubt--

In many official sentences there is no antecedent for pronouns used. For ex-- personal pronouns ( we, you, etc).

How to decide whether antecedent is required or NOT?
Ex: scientists declared that we need pure environment. ( In this "we" does not have any antecedent).

Due regards.

Posted from my mobile device
CEO
CEO
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 3675
Own Kudos [?]: 3529 [1]
Given Kudos: 149
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Send PM
Pronouns with no antecedents [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
himanshu0077 wrote:
I have a doubt--

In many official sentences there is no antecedent for pronouns used. For ex-- personal pronouns ( we, you, etc).

Hi Himanshu, there are almost zero chances that you will get a sentence on GMAT that uses a pronoun such as we, you etc. Sentences on GMAT are almost exclusively in third person (they, them, it, he, she etc.).

So, if you can cite an official sentence, it will make the discussion more contextual.

himanshu0077 wrote:
Ex: scientists declared that we need pure environment. ( In this "we" does not have any antecedent).

So, the correct sentence would be:

Scientists declared that they needed a pure environment.

Here, they would refer to scientists.

If the intent is to refer to general public, then the sentence would be:

Scientists declared that people needed a pure environment.

In any case, I don't see a role for we here.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Mar 2021
Posts: 40
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 151
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V31
Send PM
Re: Pronouns with no antecedents [#permalink]
EducationAisle wrote:
himanshu0077 wrote:
I have a doubt--

In many official sentences there is no antecedent for pronouns used. For ex-- personal pronouns ( we, you, etc).

Hi Himanshu, there are almost zero chances that you will get a sentence on GMAT that uses a pronoun such as we, you etc. Sentences on GMAT are almost exclusively in third person (they, them, it, he, she etc.).

So, if you can cite an official sentence, it will make the discussion more contextual.

himanshu0077 wrote:
Ex: scientists declared that we need pure environment. ( In this "we" does not have any antecedent).

So, the correct sentence would be:

Scientists declared that they needed a pure environment.

Here, they would refer to scientists.

If the intent is to refer to general public, then the sentence would be:

Scientists declared that people needed a pure environment.

In any case, I don't see a role for we here.


For ex - Aristotle SC:

Menlo university's range of graduate programmes has been developed to fulfil your needs whether you intend to pursue a career in industry, business, govt, NGOs or academia, and whatever your background.

In above ex: there is no antecedent for "you".

I am not able to remember where I have seen the official question.

Due regards

Posted from my mobile device
CEO
CEO
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 3675
Own Kudos [?]: 3529 [1]
Given Kudos: 149
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Send PM
Re: Pronouns with no antecedents [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Yeah, would prefer a discussion on an official question Himanshu.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Mar 2021
Posts: 40
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 151
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V31
Send PM
Re: Pronouns with no antecedents [#permalink]
EducationAisle wrote:
Yeah, would prefer a discussion on an official question Himanshu.


Ok. I will try to find it out.

Thanks a lot.

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 31 Jan 2020
Posts: 4422
Own Kudos [?]: 1311 [0]
Given Kudos: 16
Send PM
Re: Pronouns with no antecedents [#permalink]
Quote:
Ok. I will try to find it out.

Thanks a lot.


This Official Question may be a type you're looking for:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/although-she ... 08881.html
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Mar 2021
Posts: 40
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 151
GMAT 1: 680 Q50 V31
Send PM
Re: Pronouns with no antecedents [#permalink]
GmatTutorKnight wrote:
Quote:
Ok. I will try to find it out.

Thanks a lot.


This Official Question may be a type you're looking for:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/although-she ... 08881.html


In this clear antecedent is there. ( Name is given).
(And as mentioned in above replies, it is in third person too).

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Pronouns with no antecedents [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6925 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
GRE Forum Moderator
14016 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne