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.
02 Nov 2017, 10:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello GmatClub,
I'm still trying to wrap my head around pronouns, in particularly "it" and "which". It's mentioned that the golden rule is that pronouns must unequivocally refer to their antecedent. So I have two questions, backed up by two OG examples, on how my thinking went wrong. For these examples, we'll just show the correct answer in order to directly address the problem.
Question 1: When pronouns unequivocally refer to their antecedent, is it by meaning or by elimination
OG Review 2015, Question 767:
The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which increased 5 percent during the first 3 months of this year after it fell over the last two years.
Answer C: which have increased 5 percent during the first 3 months of this year after falling
It is clear, by meaning, that "which" refers to "profits". I know that "which" can't refer to modifiers, company in this case. However, "results" and "cost-cutting measures" are still there for "which" to refer to. So my logic is that, subject-verb agreement means "which" can refer to "results", "cost-cutting measures" or "profits", but it makes most sense to refer to "profits" so it has to refer to "profits". Would this be correct?
Question 2: Same question but with it
OG Review 2015, Question 779:
Marconi's conception of the radio was as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation; instead, it is precisely the opposite, a tool for communicating with large, public audience.
Answer C: Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation that could substitute for the telephone; instead, it has become
Here, the answer comment specifically says this: An active verb makes the first clause more concise; it in the second clause clearly refers to the radio
It seems to me that the answer even acknowledges that it will refer to its antecedent by meaning because clearly, "radio" and "telephone" are both singular which can take the place of "it" by subject-verb agreement. But by meaning, then "it" refers to "radio". Is there a rule that says "it" can't refer to nouns in what I believe is called the adjectival clause?
Sincerely Yours,
Donny
I'm still trying to wrap my head around pronouns, in particularly "it" and "which". It's mentioned that the golden rule is that pronouns must unequivocally refer to their antecedent. So I have two questions, backed up by two OG examples, on how my thinking went wrong. For these examples, we'll just show the correct answer in order to directly address the problem.
Question 1: When pronouns unequivocally refer to their antecedent, is it by meaning or by elimination
OG Review 2015, Question 767:
The results of the company's cost-cutting measures are evident in its profits, which increased 5 percent during the first 3 months of this year after it fell over the last two years.
Answer C: which have increased 5 percent during the first 3 months of this year after falling
It is clear, by meaning, that "which" refers to "profits". I know that "which" can't refer to modifiers, company in this case. However, "results" and "cost-cutting measures" are still there for "which" to refer to. So my logic is that, subject-verb agreement means "which" can refer to "results", "cost-cutting measures" or "profits", but it makes most sense to refer to "profits" so it has to refer to "profits". Would this be correct?
Question 2: Same question but with it
OG Review 2015, Question 779:
Marconi's conception of the radio was as a substitute for the telephone, a tool for private conversation; instead, it is precisely the opposite, a tool for communicating with large, public audience.
Answer C: Marconi conceived of the radio as a tool for private conversation that could substitute for the telephone; instead, it has become
Here, the answer comment specifically says this: An active verb makes the first clause more concise; it in the second clause clearly refers to the radio
It seems to me that the answer even acknowledges that it will refer to its antecedent by meaning because clearly, "radio" and "telephone" are both singular which can take the place of "it" by subject-verb agreement. But by meaning, then "it" refers to "radio". Is there a rule that says "it" can't refer to nouns in what I believe is called the adjectival clause?
Sincerely Yours,
Donny
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!
02 Nov 2017, 17:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
donnylee
Dear donnylee,
I'm happy to respond.
These are intelligent and thoughtful questions. First of all, I will say, these two situation are what we call in English "apples and oranges"--that is, two completely different and unrelated things.
The pronoun "which" is a relative pronoun that always begins a noun-modifying clause. Any noun-modifying clause is subject to the Modifier Touch Rule. Thus, in your first example sentence, "which" refers to "profits" precisely because they touch--that is, they are adjacent. Of course, this relationship is also apparent from logic---in a well-designed sentence, grammar and logic point in the same direction!
The pronoun "it" is a personal pronoun, so it can appear in a variety of places in a sentence. Many factors influence the pronoun-antecedent relationship for personal pronouns.
1) certainly, proximity and unambiguity are relevant factors
2) an underappreciated factor is parallelism. If a noun is a subject of one clause, and a pronoun is the subject of a parallel clause, then there's a powerful logical link between them, and that link certainly can clarify the pronoun-antecedent relationship. That's precisely what is happening in your second example sentence.
3) the rhetorical prominence of a word also has an effect--if a word is a powerful focus of all parts of the sentence, then that heightens is visibility as an antecedent of a pronoun in the sentence.
There's absolutely no rule about whether an antecedent can or cannot be part of an adjectival clause or any other kind of phrase or clause.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
02 Nov 2017, 18:56
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi Mike,
Gosh, I'm surprised to see you reply. Quick note, by the way, your Magoosh blog is of tremendous help.
Your points 1 to 3 on "it" usage enforced your idea of grammer and logic pointing in the same direction. I got that. I would still like to clear two things on "which". My understanding is facilitated by your Modifier Touch Rule, including its exception. Mind if I seek expansions on two examples (call them A and B) in your blog.
A: Your said:
In the last decades of his life, Rimsky-Korsakov produced a massive book on orchestration, which is still read by composition students today.
Clearly, "on orchestration" is the vital modifier. So "which " refers to book . Understood.
A: But is this possible:
In the last decades of his life, Rimsky-Korsakov produced a massive book on orchestration, which at that time had more string instruments than brass ones.
A: Interpretation: "which " refers to orchestration as it touches it. Not allowed, okay but clumsy, or good?
Also, you also mentioned "A pronoun cannot have a clause as an antecedent". This really blew my mind because if it were true, I've been mistakenly using things like "which" and "that" as shortcuts to refer to phrases.
B: You said:
Unlike most other elemental metals, gold resists the corrosive action of air and water, which enables it to maintain its characteristic luster unabated over time
So I understood that "which " can't refer to gold resisting the corrosive action of air and water. I got the part of encapsulating using noun. My question, was there ever a way for a word, probably a pronoun, to refer to clauses?
B: Is this possible:
Unlike most other elemental metals, gold resists the corrosive action of air and water, and that enables it to maintain its characteristic luster unabated over time
B: Interpretation:
that = gold resisting the corrosive action of air and water
I read your "many uses of that" and my conclusion is that "that" is used as a demonstrative pronoun like how you mentioned "the pronoun “that” is used as a stand-in for a much longer phrase in a comparison"
Is this conclusion correct: "which" MUST always refer to a noun. "that" is more liberal in that it can refer to a "noun" or "phrase"
Sincerely Yours,
Donny
Gosh, I'm surprised to see you reply. Quick note, by the way, your Magoosh blog is of tremendous help.
Your points 1 to 3 on "it" usage enforced your idea of grammer and logic pointing in the same direction. I got that. I would still like to clear two things on "which". My understanding is facilitated by your Modifier Touch Rule, including its exception. Mind if I seek expansions on two examples (call them A and B) in your blog.
A: Your said:
In the last decades of his life, Rimsky-Korsakov produced a massive book on orchestration, which is still read by composition students today.
Clearly, "on orchestration" is the vital modifier. So "which " refers to book . Understood.
A: But is this possible:
In the last decades of his life, Rimsky-Korsakov produced a massive book on orchestration, which at that time had more string instruments than brass ones.
A: Interpretation: "which " refers to orchestration as it touches it. Not allowed, okay but clumsy, or good?
Also, you also mentioned "A pronoun cannot have a clause as an antecedent". This really blew my mind because if it were true, I've been mistakenly using things like "which" and "that" as shortcuts to refer to phrases.
B: You said:
Unlike most other elemental metals, gold resists the corrosive action of air and water, which enables it to maintain its characteristic luster unabated over time
So I understood that "which " can't refer to gold resisting the corrosive action of air and water. I got the part of encapsulating using noun. My question, was there ever a way for a word, probably a pronoun, to refer to clauses?
B: Is this possible:
Unlike most other elemental metals, gold resists the corrosive action of air and water, and that enables it to maintain its characteristic luster unabated over time
B: Interpretation:
that = gold resisting the corrosive action of air and water
I read your "many uses of that" and my conclusion is that "that" is used as a demonstrative pronoun like how you mentioned "the pronoun “that” is used as a stand-in for a much longer phrase in a comparison"
Is this conclusion correct: "which" MUST always refer to a noun. "that" is more liberal in that it can refer to a "noun" or "phrase"
Sincerely Yours,
Donny
