r0ckst4r
Can someone explain to me when a pronoun has a clear antecedent and when it doesn't? The rules for pronouns in this regard are very vague to me.
Hi r0ckst4r,
pronoun ambiguity should not be a
reason to eliminate an option in the first place. In A actually, the pronoun usage is very decent:
-
textbook writers is the Noun-subject of one clause
-
they is the Pronoun-subject of the other clause
From a pure
parallelism/symmetry perspective, a
Pronoun-subject of one clause can be considered to refer to
Noun-subject of another clause.
Hence,
they can be considered to refer to
textbook writers.
In any case, GMAT is quite
liberal, when it comes to pronoun ambiguity.
r0ckst4r
The
intended meaning is that textbook writers have access to an almost unlimited information, while museum curators are limited by the works they possess. So, clearly, textbook writers are at an
advantage.
E says:
....curators are limited to the works, which they, unlike textbook writers, they possess.This is basically suggesting that museum curators possess works that textbook writers
don’t! So, option E is actually suggesting as if textbook writers are at some kind of a
disadvantage (because they don’t possess those works). Hence, it
distorts the meaning.
p.s. Our book
EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses
Pronoun ambiguity, its application and examples in significant detail. If someone is interested, PM me your email-id, I can mail the corresponding section.