Restorers say that if allowed to remove and replace the discolored

The answer is E
We need a subject for the sentence to make sense .
Here C is the correct choice
A we need verb
B it can not refer to researchers as they are humans
C correct
D when is wrong as it is used to show time
E same as D and it is wrong .

Hi Karishma,

Can u explain why option B is wrong, In some sentences we dont have any referent for "it" such as "it is difficult to understand why some people behave..."
And can u also explain how can we recognize such difference (where we need to have some referent to "it" vs its correct to have no referent to "it")

hey checkout this link
I think it will clear your doubt
https://gmatclub.com/forum/restorers-say-that-if-allowed-to-remove-and-replace-the-discolored-155973.html#p1682299

change of tense is also seems absurd, we need to show smooth shift from present working condition "are " to "will". They makes clear who will do the work and what it will result.

Dear AnthonyRitz AjiteshArun IanStewart GMATGuruNY DmitryFarber VeritasPrepBrian ccooley MartyTargetTestPrep,

Why is B. wrong?

Why can't "it" be a placeholder for "to move and replace"

First of all, "to move and replace" isn't a noun.
Second of all, "to move and replace" hasn't yet been introduced in the sentence at that point, making it a non-ideal antecedent.
Third of all, it's redundant and ridiculous. Just put this proposed antecedent into the sentence and then listen to it: "Restorers say that if to move and replace is allowed to remove and replace..."

Dear AnthonyRitz,

Thank you for your resposne!

My doubt comes from the example from SC guide attached herein.
Now, I'm not sure when using placeholder it to postpone infinitive subject will be ever correct?

But "to move and replace" isn't the infinitive subject. It isn't even acting as a noun. There's already a perfectly good subject here (unlike in your attached examples): "restorers."

Furthermore, you're ignoring the hands-down most important point: "Restorers say that if to move and replace is allowed to remove and replace..." is ridiculous, redundant, illogical nonsense!

Even trying "if to remove and replace the discolored varnish layer on the Mona Lisa is allowed" creates a fairly untenable mess. Why are we going to such trouble to force an awful construction here?

Dear AnthonyRitz,

My understanding is a bit different from yours. (I missed that in your previous post. Sincere apologies)

The bold part in your response above shouldn't be repeated
(similar to the example I posted: the sentence does not say "TO RESIST temptation is futile TO RESIST temptation" -> "TO RESIST temptation" isn't repeated after "futile")

So, my understanding is that:

Restorers say that if it is allowed to remove and replace the discolored layer of varnish on the Mona Lisa, the colors Leonardo da Vinci painted nearly five hundred years ago will once again shine through.
=
Restorers say that if to remove and replace the discolored layer of varnish on the Mona Lisa is allowed, the colors Leonardo da Vinci painted nearly five hundred years ago will once again shine through.

I think we shouldn't repeat "to remove" after "allowed" (just like the example I posted). No repeat.

Please let me know I'm mistaken.

After a minute, I gathered your intent. I've already edited above to address this. It's still a wildly awkward construction that you've gone to massive lengths to obtain. Why would you ever want to say it in this roundabout, awkward, difficult way when you could just say "if they are allowed to..."?

Dear AnthonyRitz,

Thank you for taking the time to try to understand me.
Admittedly, I hate to reject answer choice just because although grammatically correct and nothing wrong with it, the choice sounds or looks awkward.

But I think I have to live with it for this question. Thanks!

This answer choice is absolutely, 100%, not grammatically correct in any way, shape, or form! Among other things, using an infinitive subject as you propose would imply that this is a general proposition, rather than the very specific instance that it actually is.

Logical predication; Agreement

The sentence reports a claim restorers make about
the results they could bring about if given a chance to restore the Mona Lisa.

A. The placement of the modifier if allowed . . . on the “Mona Lisa” makes this illogically a descriptor of colors,
the subject of the independent clause that immediately follows.
B. The pronoun it either has no referent, or it refers to colors, which is not only illogical but is also an instance of noun-pronoun disagreement in number.
C. Correct. The pronoun they makes restorers the subject of the verb allowed, which is logically sound.
D. This version of the sentence has the same problem as A; when allowed nonsensically describes colors.
E. The referent of the singular pronoun it is absent from the sentence.

The correct answer is C.

I read all of the answers but I am not convinced by anyone's explanation.
I believe that the reason why "If they are" is correct is because of the use of the word "will" near the end of the sentence. "Will" is a much more assertive word so to match that assertion, we need "if they are" instead of "if they were" or "If". Had the word "would" been used in the sentence instead of "will", then "if" would have been a much more suitable choice.
GMATNinja, MartyTargetTestPrep, egmat, DmitryFarber, zhanbo, RonPurewal, KyleWiddison, GMATGuruNY
If possible, could anyone of the experts please share their opinion of my analysis?
Thank You.

0Lucky0


The GMAT can't rely on vague ideas such as "more assertive"--there has to be a clear issue of grammar or meaning to make each answer right or wrong. As for your not being convinced, we'd need to know what particular issue you're having trouble with. We absolutely can't leave the first part as a modifier, because then we'd be saying "the colors" are allowed to remove the varnish. That cuts B and D. The restorers aren't an "it," so B and E are out. So it's less than C is how we MUST say the sentence than that it's the only viable option remaining.

0Lucky0,

(A) and (D) are incorrect because, when "allowed" modifies "the colors", "the colors" must be the recipient of the action "allow". However, it is nonsensical to allow the colors to do the restoration job. Consider a correct version:
If allowed to remove and replace the discolored layer of varnish on the Mona Lisa, restorers are confident that the colors Leonardo da Vinci painted nearly five hundred years ago will once again shine through.

(B) and (E) are a bit tricky even though many find them not appealing at all for lack of explicit referent for "it". Actually, "it" can stand for the infinitive. It is grammatically correct to state that "If it is allowed to remove and replace..." = "If to remove and replace ... is allowed".
(BE) are just not as clear as (C).
Supposing on one given date when the authority declares that is is now allowed to to remove and replace the discolored layer of varnish on the Mona Lisa, can this very act of allowing result in the shining colors automatically? No. Someone competent and willing must undertake the task. It is possible that nobody is willing to touch the famous paint, thus the prediction won't be true.

In comparison, (C) clearly indicates that if they are allowed, they are willing to take on the job. They also believe in their restoration skills.

So, (C) is the best choice.

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended core meaning this sentence is that if restorers are allowed to remove and replace the discolored layer of varnish on the Mona Lisa, the colors Leonardo da Vinci painted nearly five hundred years ago will once again shine through.

Concepts tested here: Subject-Verb Agreement + Meaning + Modifiers + Pronouns + Idioms

• In a “phrase + comma + noun” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun; this is one of the most frequently tested concepts on GMAT sentence correction.
• "it" cannot be used to refer to human beings.
• "if" is used to introduce conditional statements.
• "when" is used to refer to a point in time.

A: Trap.
1/ The sentence formed by this answer choice incorrectly uses "if allowed to remove and replace the discolored layer of varnish on the Mona Lisa" to modify "the colors Leonardo da Vinci painted", illogically implying that the colors may be allowed to remove and replace the discolored layer of varnish on the Mona Lisa; the intended meaning is that the restorers may be allowed to remove and replace the discolored layer of varnish on the Mona Lisa; remember, in a “phrase + comma + noun” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun.

B: Trap.
1/ This answer choice incorrectly refers to the plural noun "Restorers" with the singular pronoun "it" and the singular verb "is".
2/ Option B incorrectly uses the pronoun "it" to refer to the noun "Restorers"; remember, "it" cannot be used to refer to human beings.

C: Correct.
1/ This answer choice correctly refers to the plural noun "Restorers" with the plural pronoun "they" and the plural verb "are".
2/ Option C correctly uses the pronoun "they" to refer to the noun "Restorers".
3/ The sentence formed by Option C uses the phrase "if they are allowed to remove and replace the discolored layer of varnish on the Mona Lisa"; the construction of this phrase avoids the modifier error seen in Options A and D, as it utilizes a conditional clause rather than the "phrase + comma + noun" construction, conveying the intended meaning - that the restorers may be allowed to remove and replace the discolored layer of varnish on the Mona Lisa.
4/ Option C correctly uses "if" to introduce a conditional statement.

D:
1/ The sentence formed by this answer choice incorrectly uses "when allowed to remove and replace the discolored layer of varnish on the Mona Lisa" to modify "the colors Leonardo da Vinci painted", illogically implying that the colors may be allowed to remove and replace the discolored layer of varnish on the Mona Lisa; the intended meaning is that the restorers may be allowed to remove and replace the discolored layer of varnish on the Mona Lisa; remember, in a “phrase + comma + noun” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun.
2/ Option D incorrectly uses "when" to present a conditional statement; remember, "if" is used to introduce conditional statements, and "when" is used to refer to a point in time.

E:
1/ This answer choice incorrectly refers to the plural noun "Restorers" with the singular pronoun "it" and the singular verb "is".
2/ Option E incorrectly uses the pronoun "it" to refer to the noun "Restorers"; remember, "it" cannot be used to refer to human beings.
3/ Option E incorrectly uses "when" to present a conditional statement; remember, "if" is used to introduce conditional statements, and "when" is used to refer to a point in time.

Hence, C is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Phrase Comma Subject" and "Subject Comma Phrase" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team