Researchers are studying plastics that dissolve at different

This thread revolves around pronoun ambiguity and the placement of the adverb ‘originally’

1. they originally seemed --- The pronoun ‘they appears in two junctures, the first one referring to the researchers, and the second one referring to the plastics ( thereby their disintegration time) . The second one cannot logically refer to researches since it absurd to expect researchers to disintegrate.

2. they seemed originally ---- same problem as in A.

3. it seemed that they would originally ---- ‘It’ holds the place value. But the placement of the adverb is a problem in this choice. It gives a feeling that the plastics originally dissolved quickly, while now they are taking more time. This is wrong perception.

4. it originally seemed--- The adverb placement is ok; but the pronoun it now refers to the plural plastics.

5. it originally seemed they would--- may be this is the solution with it taking its place holder value and the adverb originally modifying the disintegration time and the plural pronoun they modifying the plastics.

What is odd about this thread is that, most of the pointers are more of intuitions and personal perceptions.
_________________

I came across the below explanation in one of the other forums........This is a copy and paste of the same

****************************************************************************

From Kaplan: The Kaplan thing says about this. (About plastics)

'The tricky part is to choose between it and they. 'They' would imply that the plastics themselves first seemed to do one thing and then ended up doing another. The expletive 'it', the pronoun with no clear antecedent - makes more sense, it simply suggests that initial indications were misleading. Using 'it', it is necessary to include the phrase 'they would' to make it clear what seemed to be the case. So E is the best answer.

Erin says: (About charter vacations)

B would need to be in past tense, seemed. In fact, I often teach GMAT and TOEFL students that the words original (and its derivations) and first usually require past tense.

Furthermore, the "past future" of would in E is more precise than the simple past in A (or that B is lacking, in case you're going to ask if B would be correct if we changed seem to seemed). Since we're talking about something we'd learn after a certain point in the past, would is better.

For example:
• This Acura is a lot better than I thought it would be.
is better than
• This Acura is a lot better than I thought it was.
In the first example, we are saying that something turned out to be true. In the second example, we are saying that we were not aware of a fact that was true at that time.

And in the charter vacations question, there is no fact that the travelers were unaware of when they purchased the charter vacation--after the original purchase of the charter vacation (and probably toward the end of the vacation), the charter vacation turned out to be more costly than they had at first believed it would be.

An example to clarify the things..............
It is as difficult to prevent crimes against property as those that are against a person.
(A) those that are against a
(B) those against a
(C) it is against a
(D) preventing those against a
(E) it is to prevent those against a

Answer is E, for the expletive it.

**********************************************************************************

Hope this helps

Cheers,
Unplugged

I am stuck between A and E.

My thought process was that:

For option A, though it seemed clean, I was not very sure if I can attribute "they" to "athletes". I understand that according to the meaning, "they" has to be referred to "athletes" but I wasn't sure of it.

For option E, I felt there is no ambiguity but I failed to realize that there is no subject "corrected by athletes".

My question is regarding the option A:



In the above sentence, will GMAT consider the pronoun "they" as ambiguous or not?
Because there are a set of books that say that because "they" is the subject in the second clause it has to refer to the subject "athletes" of the first clause.

Is this the right way to think about "they" on the GMAT ??

yes you are right.
see the excerpt from MANHATTAN SC GUIDE:

a) Sometimes (though not always), pronouns show a tendency to refer to nouns in the same case, especially when they are embedded in parallel structures. 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.

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.

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. Eventhough there are at least two closer possible antecedents (environments and explosions), we know that they clearly refers to supernovas.

SO basing above and analysing official question you can take this:
If there is and/but/although in a sentence ,then the pronouns refer to first noun or the main subject.
example: Although Mary is younger than Susan ,she is more mature.(she = MARY)
The dog tried to hide under the table ,but it was found.(IT = DOG)

NOTE: this is not claim but no official qusetion i have found which has negated this.

hope this helps.

Thanks for the reply blueseas.

Need your help on the below problem.

Researchers are studying plastics that dissolve at different rates, and they are finding that the so-called "quick disintegration" plastics are taking more time to deteriorate than they originally seemed.

A. they originally seemed
B. they seemed originally
C. it seemed that they would originally
D. it originally seemed
E. it originally seemed they would <--- OA

I thought there is a rule that all the references of "they" should be to the same precedent?

In option E, I was confused about what is the precedent for "they"? Is it referring to researchers/plastics/"q d" plastics?

I thought option E is ambiguous. The OA explanation doesn't talk about the pronoun ambiguity.

hi gmatter,

i want add something that:

PRONOUN RULE IS NOT THE ABSOLUTE RULE.(As per RON)
(note: i am not saying about pronun number rule)
always use PRONOUN RULE as the last weapon of your arsenal in order to eliminate any answer choice.

now since in this question meaning wise LAST USE OF THEY should refer to PLASTICS hence the use of they is correct.

please find the attched file for better understanding.

hope it helps

Researchers are studying plastics that dissolve at different rates, and
they are finding that
the so-called "quick disintegration" plastics are taking more time to deteriorate than they originally seemed.

they (plastic) originally seemed (to take -ellipse) -> but to take is not mentioned in the original sentence
they seemed originally -> Same as A
it seemed that they would originally
>>the so-called "quick disintegration" plastics are taking more time to deteriorate than it seemed that they would originally.
it originally seemed -> it pointing to plural plastics
it originally seemed they would (take)
>>the so-called "quick disintegration" plastics are taking more time to deteriorate than it originally seemed they would.


C Vs E.
E conveys the meaning more precisely. I don't know how to term the issue in C but the changed position of adverb has made the stmt pretty weird.

Request for inputs from other members.
Regards.

daagh - Can you please clarify how in option D 'It' has not taken the placeholder value
also in option E why 'they' is not ambiguous as you have already cross the above 2 answers on the basis of ambiguity

dushya
Please try to complete each choice and see how the meaning fans out.

Choice 4. It originally seemed what? -- than it originally seemed to take. This means that the plastics are taking more time than people thought they would take. Therefore, 'it' has no relevance in the case. The pronoun 'it' takes a placeholder value when it has no other worthwhile noun to complete the meaning. Placeholder values will be perhaps be the last thing one should look for.

Choice 5. it originally seemed they would-- the completed sentence is -- It originally seemed they( plastics) would take. Here one cannot mix up the plural noun with the Researchers because the researcher does not take time to deteriorate. Here the time taken to deteriorate is the essence of comparison. The choice is followed by a relative clause (that) they would (take), making it clear that they refers to the subject of the nearest clause name the plastics.

On the other hand, B has no such clarity because it has no relative clause that clarifies who is taking more time.

Truly, stylistic differences are too subtle.
_________________

generis

need your kind help here.
I could not really understand why in option E, "they" can be the correct pronoun with seemed?

Or i am missing something important? "they" can refer back to "plastics", non-human things?

Please help here

I am confused between choice D and E.
I was able to eliminate others as 'it" shall refer to time only.

The sentence needs clear antecedents for plastics and what seemed to the researchers.
plastics cannot seem something, so A and B are wrong
it seemed is correct. However, in C originally is misplaced.

Only E does it correctly

Researchers are studying plastics that dissolve at different rates, and they are finding that the so-called "quick disintegration" plastics are taking more time to deteriorate than they originally seemed.
A. they originally seemed
B. they seemed originally
C. it seemed that they would originally
D. it originally seemed
E. it originally seemed they would

Any reason why option D is wrong ?

Jashan93: D is an imcomplete sentence/ambiguous meaning.
we can complete D in the following ways:

Researchers are studying plastics that dissolve at different rates, and they are finding that the so-called "quick disintegration" plastics are taking more time to deteriorate than it originally seemed in few of their studies.
Researchers are studying plastics that dissolve at different rates, and they are finding that the so-called "quick disintegration" plastics are taking more time to deteriorate than it originally seemed for few of the researchers.

so seemed what? is still missing in D.
E basically completes the sentence by telling us that the plastics take more time usually what they are supposed to take.

Hope this helps.
Santora

I have a doubt with the correct answer E in this case.

E. it originally seemed they would

Since this is an elliptical construction, the sentence should actually read -

Researchers are studying plastics that dissolve at different rates, and they are finding that the so-called "quick disintegration" plastics are taking more time to deteriorate than it originally seemed they would (take)

However, the verb "take" is never mentioned in the sentence, so can the ellipsis be correct in this case? I think ellipsis can only replace a verb in a later part of a sentence if the verb is present in the same form in an earlier part. AndrewN GMATNinja is my understanding correct?

Posted from my mobile device

I think you are really splitting hairs here, aritrar4. Yes, the sentence would be better written if are taking in (E) were replaced with take. But should we dismiss the answer on such a basis, in light of the other answer choices that we also need to consider? I would say no. As the saying goes, there are bigger fish to fry. I would stick with easier eliminations first (and I would focus on official Verbal questions only).

- Andrew
_________________

I am confused between option C & E. can someone please explain it to me ?

Hi Experts generis, AndrewN,

Per my reading, there is no ambiguity in choice D as the time to disintegrate is being compared clearly - what the researchers expected vs. what the expectation turned out to be. Are there any other eliminations for Option D?

Regards,
VIVA

Hello, VIVA. Although I would agree in that I might say such a sentence as (D) and not think twice about adding the extra words for clarity, we are leaning perhaps too heavily on ellipsis to build the bridge in meaning. That is, the comparison places an emphasis on an action, taking more time, and that part could be left out as an understood element if we saw a word such as expected after the comparison marker, than. But this ellipsis leaves out not just the verb, but the doer of the action, and on the GMAT™, such an overload is not preferable—the meaning may be unclear. To illustrate, if we ignore the adverb and look at the comparison at a barebones level, we get,

plastics are taking more time than it seemed [they would take]

If we reintroduce what was happening to the end of the sentence, we would get,

plastics are taking more time than it seemed [they would take] to deteriorate

But now, look what happens if we remove the "understood" part in brackets:

plastics are taking more time than it seemed to deteriorate

This is the nonsensical meaning that others have pointed out in earlier posts. Seemed to what, exactly? The correct answer clarifies the matter by adding the necessary information.

plastics are taking more time than it seemed they would [take] to deteriorate

An elided verb in such a comparison is fine. The inclusion of it after the comparison simply requires too much to supply on the part of the reader in the more concise option. Again, the truncated version is fine for conversation, but not on the GMAT™.

I hope that helps with your query. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew
_________________