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.
08 May 2012, 10:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
Researchers claim to have developed new "nano-papers" incorporating tiny cellulose fibers, which THEY allege give THEM the strength of cast iron.
Now, the explanation behind the correction is that THEY / THEM in the aforementioned sentence can refer to both the researchers or the nano-papers. There is ambiguity and hence it rephrases the sentence as follows:-
Researchers claim to have developed new "nano-papers" incorporating tiny cellulose fibers, which allegedly give THESE MATERIALS the strength of cast iron.
Hello every one. I am new to the group. Planning to write GMAT by the end of June'12. Just started with preps. Don't know how this will be possible with only weekends to study.
Anywho, I was going through the SC tips from Manhattan. I got stuck at some tips and could not swallow. Kindly help me with the usage of these pronouns.
Fine, my first doubt is that does WHICH have any ambiguity in this? And does comma have any effect on the pronouns?
2. Another sentence
Confronted by radical changes in production and distribution, modern Hollywood studios are attempting various experiments in an effort to retain THEIR status as the primary arbiter of movie consumption.
According to MR, this sentence does not have any error. But my doubt is that when THEY can refer to nano-papers in the first sentence, then cannot "experiments" refer to THEIR? And then, there will be an ambiguity and the sentence will be incorrect.
Thanks people...
Now, the explanation behind the correction is that THEY / THEM in the aforementioned sentence can refer to both the researchers or the nano-papers. There is ambiguity and hence it rephrases the sentence as follows:-
Researchers claim to have developed new "nano-papers" incorporating tiny cellulose fibers, which allegedly give THESE MATERIALS the strength of cast iron.
Hello every one. I am new to the group. Planning to write GMAT by the end of June'12. Just started with preps. Don't know how this will be possible with only weekends to study.
Anywho, I was going through the SC tips from Manhattan. I got stuck at some tips and could not swallow. Kindly help me with the usage of these pronouns.
Fine, my first doubt is that does WHICH have any ambiguity in this? And does comma have any effect on the pronouns?
2. Another sentence
Confronted by radical changes in production and distribution, modern Hollywood studios are attempting various experiments in an effort to retain THEIR status as the primary arbiter of movie consumption.
According to MR, this sentence does not have any error. But my doubt is that when THEY can refer to nano-papers in the first sentence, then cannot "experiments" refer to THEIR? And then, there will be an ambiguity and the sentence will be incorrect.
Thanks people...
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!
08 May 2012, 11:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi Talismaaniac,
The question of ambiguity with pronouns is maybe somewhat ambiguous itself
.
In general though, if a pronoun can plausibly refer to more than one subject it is considered ambiguous. What constitutes plausible of course allow a little wiggle room in interpretation. Let's look at your first example.
1. Researchers claim to have developed new "nano-papers" incorporating tiny cellulose fibers, which THEY allege give THEM the strength of cast iron.
Could researchers have the strength of cast iron? Plausibly no, one might think, as even the strongest power lifter doesn't quite have the strength of cast iron. The thing is people can be strong. And in hundreds years, perhaps we will have the (ahem) technology to have humans with the strength of cast iron (again the comparison isn't directly apt, as cast iron strength doesn't completely relate to human strength).
However, let's compare the ambiguity to the potential ambiguity in the second sentence.
2. Confronted by radical changes in production and distribution, modern Hollywood studios are attempting various experiments in an effort to retain THEIR status as the primary arbiter of movie consumption.
Do you know any experiments that direct movies? No, the question is utterly absurd and nonsensical. Therefore, we would not suggest that experiments are trying to retain their status as the arbiter of movie consumption. It is clear that only humans create movies (vs. the first sentence that talks about strength, something displayed by both humans and metals).
Therefore, a pronoun is not ambiguous if it reasonably can refer to only one noun. And by reasonably/plausibly I mean it does not lead to arrant nonsense, the way experiments (abstract noun) starts doing things only humans do.
Hope that helps.
The question of ambiguity with pronouns is maybe somewhat ambiguous itself
.In general though, if a pronoun can plausibly refer to more than one subject it is considered ambiguous. What constitutes plausible of course allow a little wiggle room in interpretation. Let's look at your first example.
1. Researchers claim to have developed new "nano-papers" incorporating tiny cellulose fibers, which THEY allege give THEM the strength of cast iron.
Could researchers have the strength of cast iron? Plausibly no, one might think, as even the strongest power lifter doesn't quite have the strength of cast iron. The thing is people can be strong. And in hundreds years, perhaps we will have the (ahem) technology to have humans with the strength of cast iron (again the comparison isn't directly apt, as cast iron strength doesn't completely relate to human strength).
However, let's compare the ambiguity to the potential ambiguity in the second sentence.
2. Confronted by radical changes in production and distribution, modern Hollywood studios are attempting various experiments in an effort to retain THEIR status as the primary arbiter of movie consumption.
Do you know any experiments that direct movies? No, the question is utterly absurd and nonsensical. Therefore, we would not suggest that experiments are trying to retain their status as the arbiter of movie consumption. It is clear that only humans create movies (vs. the first sentence that talks about strength, something displayed by both humans and metals).
Therefore, a pronoun is not ambiguous if it reasonably can refer to only one noun. And by reasonably/plausibly I mean it does not lead to arrant nonsense, the way experiments (abstract noun) starts doing things only humans do.
Hope that helps
. 10 May 2012, 00:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hey Thanks Magoosh for a clear explanation,, I still have doubt regarding the potential of nano-papers to allege (because Manhattan mentions that THEY can refer to both the researchers and nano-papers...
And you said can experiments direct movies.
Just my doubt. Perhaps I am getting too much into this?
And you said can experiments direct movies.
Just my doubt. Perhaps I am getting too much into this?
