In the 1560 Battle of Okehazama, in which the warlord

Question

In the 1560 Battle of Okehazama, in which the warlord Imagawa Yoshimoto was defeated and killed, Oda   Nobunaga , recognizing that although being outnumbered ten to one, the terrain gave his smaller force  a decisive advantage. 
A. Nobunaga, recognizing that although outnumbered ten to one, the terrain gave his smaller force 
B. Nobunaga, recognizing that although they were outnumbered ten to one, the terrain giving his smaller force 
C. Nobunaga recognized that, although outnumbered ten to one, the terrain gave his smaller force 
D. Nobunaga recognized that, although his men were outnumbered ten to one, the terrain giving them 
E. Nobunaga recognized that, although his men were outnumbered ten to one, the terrain gave them

macjas · Accepted Answer

In the 1560 Battle of Okehazama, in which the warlord Imagawa Yoshimoto was defeated and killed, Oda Nobunaga recognizing that although being outnumbered ten to one, the terrain gave his smaller force a decisive advantage. A. Nobunaga, recognizing that although outnumbered ten to one, the terrain gave his smaller force

who exactly is outnumbered ten to one? looks like the preceding clause is illogically modifying"terrain". B. Nobunaga, recognizing that although they were outnumbered ten to one, the terrain giving his smaller force

they has no proper antecedent. Plus Mahoosh is trying to trick us into choosing this option due to parallelism recognizing::giving. But, "giving" is the wrong tense to be using here since this event is already over. C. Nobunaga recognized that, although outnumbered ten to one, the terrain gave his smaller force

the sentence is ambiguous, for it does not tell us who is outnumbered ten to one. D. Nobunaga recognized that, although his men were outnumbered ten to one, the terrain giving them

the present continuous tense here (giving...) is wrong. E. Nobunaga recognized that, although his men were outnumbered ten to one, the terrain gave them

This is the credited response: we know who were outnumbered, tenses are resolved and there are no ambiguous pronouns

SOURH7WK · Answer

Its E.
AB: main verb missing in the first clause
C: what is outnumbered not clear
D: in second clause "although his men were outnumbered ten to one, the terrain giving them " verb missing.

metallicafan · Answer

+1 E

Oda is the suject and needs a working verb.
C is not clear about what that force is.
In D, "recognized that" needs a clause after it.

Hurrydil · Answer

The original sentence along with choice B begs for a verb after the subject Oda Nobounga. We need a clause after 'that' as in C and E. C is out as it fails to clarify who is outnumbered. E looks fine.

anonimo · Answer

In choice E: "Nobunaga recognized that, although  his men  were outnumbered ten to one, the terrain gave  them …", I am not that sure the "his men" and "gave them" have a clear referent. It is unclear if those men were Imagawa Yoshimoto´s men or Oda Nobounga´s men. Same with "them". Can anyone explain it. Thanks

mikemcgarry · Answer

I'm happy to help with this. :-)

Here's the the sentence with choice (E) included: In the 1560 Battle of Okehazama, in which the warlord Imagawa Yoshimoto was defeated and killed, Oda Nobunaga recognized that, although his men were outnumbered ten to one, the terrain gave them a decisive advantage. As a general rule, wherever a pronoun appears, it refers back to the subject of that part of the sentence. If we had any pronouns in the subordinate clause following Imagawa Yoshimoto, the pronouns would refer to him and his men. That one part of the sentence, " in which the warlord Imagawa Yoshimoto was defeated and killed " "belongs" to Imagawa Yoshimoto --- he is the subject there, the main focus, and any pronouns must refer to him. Instead, the highlighted pronouns are in the main part of the sentence: both appear in substantive clauses that are the object of the verb "recognized", and the subject of that verb is Oda Nobunaga. You can bracket off the subordinate clause, and everything is clear. (In general, that's an excellent tip for figuring out the antecedent of pronouns --- bracket off subordinate clauses, parts of the sentence that "belong" to other subjects). Everything after that second comma, starting at the name "Oda Nobunaga" -- that whole part of the sentence "belongs" to Nobunaga. He is "the man", the main actor, in that part of the sentence, and every pronoun refers unambiguously to him. All the action of that main part of the sentence hangs on him. Does that make sense? Mike :-)

daagh · Answer

Mike has explained beautifully the structural relevance of the pronouns in E; Let me add to it the logical part. If any doubt lingers in our mind in re: to the appropriateness of any one of the two referents, let us momentarily insert each one of them and see which one fits logically.
 
In the 1560 Battle of Okehazama, in which the warlord Imagawa Yoshimoto was defeated and killed, Oda Nobunaga recognized that, although his men were outnumbered ten to one, the terrain gave them a decisive advantage.

The gist of the text is that Oda eventually won and defeated Imagawa, although Oda’s team was a small one; Oda’s men still won because the terrain was advantageous to Oda’s team. The decisive advantage was for the Oda’s men and not for Imagawa’s men. The victors were the Oda’ men as the choice clearly makes out. . That clears the ambiguity of the pronoun them. 
Second, the conjunction although implies that the smaller team eventually won, in spite of the smallness. If the victors were the fewer Oda’s men, the losers were the Imagawa’s greater number of men, because they were the ones decimated. 
Logically, both the pronouns smugly befit Oda’s men.

Thanks Mike for your excellent thread

kinjiGC · Answer

Hi Mike,

Can you please explain the rule with examples?

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear Kinjal, First of all, here's a blog article about pronouns and typical pronoun mistakes: https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-pronoun-traps/ One of the biggest traps is using the same pronoun in the same sentence to refer to different antecedents. That's always wrong. Rather than create new sentences right now, I'm going to challenge you. If you want to see sophisticated sentences, you should be reading --- the New York Times , the Wall Street Journal , the Economist Magazine , etc. Read those sources regularly, to improve all your GMAT Verbal skills. In the ordinary course of reading, you should come across long sentences in which pronouns are used. Probably many of them will make perfect sense to you, but if you find a sentence in which the pronoun usage is not clear, then feel free to post a question about it to me in the Magoosh forum: magoosh-324/ I will be happy to answer any questions you have there. Mike :-)

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

In the 1560 Battle of Okehazama, in which the warlord

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

In the 1560 Battle of Okehazama, in which the warlord

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards