In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor

Question

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled  that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of  their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.

(A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

(B) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of

(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of

(D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized

(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

KyleWiddison · Accepted Answer

I'm responding to a PM on this question. There are plenty of interesting issues here.

First, let's tackle the issue with the subjunctive mood. The verb "rule" may be used in the subjunctive mood to give the impression of uncertainty, but in this sentence the author has chosen the indicative mood to imply the certainty of the ruling. We know that the subjunctive is not used because none of the answer choices have the proper subjunctive structure - subjunctive verb + that + infinitive verb form without "to" (example: I demand that he go to school.) The subjunctive structure is the same in present tense and past tense (example: I demanded that he go to school.) To have subjunctive, the sentence would have to read - ...the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties OWE...

Even though we aren't using the subjunctive mood, the structure of the sentence does require the use of "that". The ruling of the Supreme Court is a clause, so we need the "that" to set off a new clause. We can't say, "The Supreme Court ruled two counties" because that means the Supreme Court is now the ruler of the counties. If we say, "The Supreme Court ruled on the restitution/on the counties" the meaning has changed from the original and we are no longer talking about the ruling that required restitution from the two counties. We can eliminate C, D, and E on this basis.

Now on to the issue of pronoun ambiguity. I've posted several times that the GMAT seems to be ambivalent to pronoun ambiguity. What the GMAT seems to be consistent with is the requirement of the same antecedent with a pronoun. In answer choice B, the pronoun "their" appears 2 times ("...two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands..."). The first appearance is a bit ambiguous, but the meaning seems pretty clear that the counties were the ones to unlawfully seize ancestral lands, so the antecedant for "their" is the counties. The second occurance of "their" refers to ancenstral lands, which were clearly owned by the Oneida Indians, so the antecedant for "their" has switched from counties to Indians. That is a switch that is not allowed by the GMAT so we can eliminate answer choice B (this is also an issue in C & D).

That leaves answer choice A...

KW

daagh · Answer

Although the main verb ‘ ruled that’  may perfectly entail a subjunctive verb ‘ owe ’ in the subordinate clause, that choice is not there in the lot. Therefore, the author intends to exclude it from the purview of testing the subjunctive mood. On the contrary, this seems to be primarily a test of pronoun reference and idiom.

A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of --------  1. the unlawful seizure safely dodges the pronoun ambiguity by using the definite article 'the' rather that the more specific pronoun 'their', which seems to be all at sundry as for as its reference is concerned . 1. ‘ruled that’ is the correct idiom – correct choice

b)that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of ---- pronoun error; the ununderlined 'their' refers to the Indians while the underlined 'their' refers to counties, a weird case of the same pronoun referring two different referents. Grammatically wrong 
 
c)two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of ---  same as in B

d)on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized --- 1 .The pronoun  they  is in a fix. Whether it refers to the nearby Indians or the distant Counties is not clear. 2. ‘ ruled on’  is wrong idiom 
 
e) On the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of. -----  ‘Ruled on’ is wrong idiom

ywilfred · Answer

(A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of 

(B) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of 
- 'their' does not have a clear referent

(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of 
- ruled two NY counties to owe restitution is wrong.

(D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized 
- wrong. suggests indians unlawfully seized their own lands. 

(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
- ruled on the restitution is wrong

A it is.

Jacques · Answer

The clause has to start with a proper subordinating coujunction - that. so C, D and E or out.

It is either A or B. ' X owed Y to Z for some reason ' is the idiomatic usage.

The Answer is A.

TGC · Answer

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.

a)that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Onedida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

b)that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of

I know that the correct idiom for the above question is

"Owed restitution to X for Y"

However, I am not convinced with the explanation that "their" in Option (B) is ambiguously referring to "Indians" because when we say

X owed restitution to Y: We know that X has done some damage to Y that is why it owes restitution to Y.

For instance : If (B) is changed to

that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians  for  their unlawful seizure of

It should be correct as " first their " in the underlined portion should correctly refer to X(counties) and " second their " present in the non-underlined portion correctly refers to "Indians".

If "THEIR" in the underlined part is incorrect , then the "THEIR" in the non-underlined part should also be incorrect. However, as the SECOND THEIR is present in non-underlined part it is presumed to be correct.

Please advise whether the usage of "FIRST THEIR" is correct or not and my reasoning is PROPER or not?

Quoted from MGMAT SC Guide for pronoun reference:

Researchers claim to have developed new "nano-papers" incorporating tiny
cellulose fibers, which THEYallege give THEM the strength of cast iron.

What nouns do they and them refer to? We might ~ that they refers to researchers (who
claim something) and that them refers to new "nano-papers" However, in reality,  both they
and them have ambiguous antecedents. Either pronoun could refer to researchers or to "nanopapers.
"

After reading above explanation why is the case that "their" in the non-underlined part correctly refers to "Indians".
 
Rgds,
TGC!

TGC · Answer

Hi Kyle,

Glad that you replied.

However, I have one more query concerned to your reply.

because of  their  unlawful seizure of  their  ancestral lands.....

In your post, you said that the Second THEIR refers to ancestral lands. However, indeed the 'ancestral lands'
is preceded by second THEIR.

Plz can you clarify that even if we omit FIRST THEIR why the SECOND THEIR present in the non-underlined portion
isn't ambiguous.

Per the meaning of the sentence as I explained in my OLD POSTS the FIRST THEIR perfectly refers to what it wants to refer.

Furthermore,

Can you apply MGMAT SC Guide suggested filtering for ambiguous pronouns here?

Number -> Gender - > Proximity -> Repeats -> Case.

Rgds,
TGC!

KyleWiddison · Answer

The 2nd "their" is connected to the ancestral lands, but "lands" is not the antecedent. Those were the ancestral lands of the Oneida Indians, so the antecedent for the 2nd "their" is Oneida Indians. The problem in this sentence isn't with pronoun ambiguity. The meaning of the sentence would be pretty clear if either one of the two pronouns (their) were omitted. The problem is that "their" appears two times in the sentence and has a different antecedent each time. The GMAT does not allow for switching antecedents in the same sentence.

I really wouldn't worry about suggested filtering for ambiguity. Focus on pronoun number agreement, use pronoun replacement to ensure proper meaning and make sure that pronouns don't switch antecedents and you should be just fine.

KW

pqhai · Answer

If we  real full sentence , B, C and D are out immediately. Only A and E remain.

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled  that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of  their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.

(A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
  Correct.

Complete (B)  ............ that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because  of  their  unlawful seizure of  their  ancestral lands  in the eighteenth century.
Double "their" ==> clearly wrong.

Complete (C)   ............two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for   their  unlawful seizure of  their  ancestral lands  in the eighteenth century.
Double "their" ==> clearly wrong.

Complete (D)   ............on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because   they  unlawfully seized  their  ancestral lands  in the eighteenth century.
"they" and "their" are not clear ==> wrong.

(E)  on the restitution that  two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of 
 Wrong.  Ruled that..... ==> correct idiom. But "ruled on the restitution that" changes meaning.

Hope it helps.

dinesh86 · Answer

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.

a)that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Onedida Indians for the unlawful seizure of

b)that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of

I know that the correct idiom for the above question is

"Owed restitution to X for Y"

However, I am not convinced with the explanation that "their" in Option (B) is ambiguously referring to "Indians" because when we say

X owed restitution to Y: We know that X has done some damage to Y that is why it owes restitution to Y.

For instance : If (B) is changed to

that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of

It should be correct as "first their" in the underlined portion should correctly refer to X(counties) and "second their" present in the non-underlined portion correctly refers to "Indians".

If "THEIR" in the underlined part is incorrect , then the "THEIR" in the non-underlined part should also be incorrect. However, as the SECOND THEIR is present in non-underlined part it is presumed to be correct.

Please advise whether the usage of "FIRST THEIR" is correct or not and my reasoning is PROPER or not?

Quoted from MGMAT SC Guide for pronoun reference:

Researchers claim to have developed new "nano-papers" incorporating tiny
cellulose fibers, which THEYallege give THEM the strength of cast iron.

What nouns do they and them refer to? We might ~ that they refers to researchers (who
claim something) and that them refers to new "nano-papers" However, in reality, both they
and them have ambiguous antecedents. Either pronoun could refer to researchers or to "nanopapers.
"

After reading above explanation why is the case that "their" in the non-underlined part correctly refers to "Indians".

Rgds,
TGC!

Skywalker18 · Answer

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled  that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of  their ancestral lands in the eighteenth century.

We need that to introduce a clause to describe SC's ruling.

(A) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of
(B) that two upstate New York counties owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because of their unlawful seizure of - restitution .. because of its is unidiomatic
Also pronoun their and they are used to refer to 2 different antecedents - Incorrect 
(C) two upstate New York counties to owe restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians for their unlawful seizure of - Pronoun issue similar to B and that is needed
(D) on two upstate New York counties that owed restitution to three tribes of Oneida Indians because they unlawfully seized - Pronoun issue similar to B and that is needed
(E) on the restitution that two upstate New York counties owed to three tribes of Oneida Indians for the unlawful seizure of - that is needed to introduce a clause

Answer A

Anant21 · Answer

Hi Kyle, thank you for your response.
If you could also explain how the meaning changes because of the use of "Rule on" in choice E that will be helpful!

The way I am thinking about the construction is - " The judge ruled on the case " is a correct sentence (as far as I know). Therefore, in this construction as well, wouldn't it make sense to say " The judge ruled on the restitution that   ", meaning that the judge is ruling on the particular restitution.

Please let me know your thoughts on this, a little confused here!

Tanchat · Answer

Is (C) wrong because of "their"?

Tanchat · Answer

Hi  KyleWiddison

How does (C) change the meaning?

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 a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor

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

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that two upstate New Yor

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