While bear markets certainly hurt institutional investors, they are

Question

While bear markets certainly hurt institutional investors,  they are potentially devastating for individual investors, whose  nest eggs—in many cases representing the sole source of retirement funds—can plummet or even vanish entirely.

(A) they are potentially devastating for individual investors, whose

(B) they can potentially devastate individual investors in that their

(C) for individual investors they are potentially devastating, because their

(D) for individual investors, it is potentially devastating in that their

(E) it can potentially devastate individual investors, whose

VeritasPrepBrian · Accepted Answer

"Bear markets" is the subject of the introductory clause, so it's set up as the proper antecedent for "they" right after the comma. I'd use modifier-style logic here: "they" should refer to the description prior to the comma, and that description has "bear markets" as a subject so "they" should refer to that subject.

The cadence of the sentence matters, too: the predicate in each case is a type of investors (while bear markets hurt these investors, they can destroy other investors). That also demonstrates that we're using the same subject (bear markets) to juxtapose how that subject affects two similar-but-different types of investors.

One thing I think is really important is recognizing that just because there are multiple nouns in a sentence, that doesn't necessarily mean that you have a pronoun reference error. Most sentences contain multiple nouns - it's only when there is legitimate doubt over which noun the pronoun refers to that you have an error. I'm a big fan of keeping pronoun reference as a secondary decision point unless you're absolutely sure there's an error. It's just an easy type to over diagnose.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

this one tests you on pronouns --

Option B - Incorrect

" they  can potentially devastate individual investors in that  their " -- the first "they" refers to "bear markets".
the second pronoun "their" should logically refer to "institutional investors". Incorrect.

Option C - Incorrect

"for individual investors they are potentially devastating, because their" -- the same form of the pronoun should logically refer to two different things "bear markets" and "individual investors".

Option D - Incorrect

the pronoun "it" does not have a logical antecedent.

Option E - Incorrect

Same thing -- the pronoun "it" does not have a logical antecedent.

NeverGiveUp- Arpit · Answer

I got the answer right by different approach.

A. they are potentially devastating for individual investors, whose 
 B. they can potentially devastate individual investors in that their  - Meaning Issue. Original sentence bear markets are devasting individula investors it doesn't talks about capability. While option B talks about capability.
 C. for individual investors they are potentially devastating, because their  Meaning Issue - In Original sentence whose describes institutional investors and we dont know whether nest eggs bla bla is reason for this.

In D and E pronoun-antecedent error. It cannot refer to plural Bear Markets.

Helium · Answer

The most actionable decision point on this problem is the end-of-choice difference between "whose" in (A) and (E) and "their" in (B), (C), and (D). Note that each of those choices is a commonly tested concept: "whose" sets up a relative modifier and "their" is a pronoun.

"Whose" in (A) and (E) directly modifies "investors" and provides a logical meaning to the sentence. Investors have nest eggs and retirement funds, so this modifier is appropriate. It also shows why relative modifiers can be so important: in (B), (C), and (D), "their" adds ambiguity at best and an illogical meaning at worst. Does "their" apply to "investors" or to "bear markets"? Note that in (B) a plural pronoun "they" has already been set to apply to "bear markets" while in (C) and (D) at best it's unclear which plural noun "their" applies to. So the answer must be (A) or (E), each of which provides a clear, logical meaning: it's the investors whose nest eggs may be affected.

Between (A) and (E) lies another pronoun issue: (E) uses the singular "it" to refer to the plural "bear markets," creating a pronoun agreement error. (A) commits neither error - it uses appropriate pronouns along with the crystal clear "whose" to modify "investors." Accordingly, (A) is correct.

divyajeswani · Answer

How does "they" in option A refer back to bear markets? Is it just by logical understanding? Isn't this a flawed question?

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Hello Everyone!

This is a great example of a question that focuses on  PRONOUNS ! Let's take a look at each option carefully and determine what we can focus on by highlighting any major differences in  orange :

While bear markets certainly hurt institutional investors,  they are potentially devastating for individual investors, whose  nest eggs—in many cases representing the sole source of retirement funds—can plummet or even vanish entirely.

(A)  they  are  potentially   devastating  for individual investors , whose 
(B)  they  can  potentially   devastate  individual investors  in that their 
(C) for individual investors  they  are  potentially   devastating ,  because their 
(D) for individual investors,  it  is  potentially   devastating   in that their 
(E)  it  can  potentially   devastate  individual investors , whose

After taking a quick glance over the options, there are plenty of differences we can work with:

1. they vs. it ( Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement )
2. potentially devastating vs. potentially devastate ( Intended Meaning )
3. whose / in that their / because their ( Wordiness/Meaning )

Let’s start with #1 on our list: pronoun-antecedent agreement.  The first thing we need to do is determine what the pronouns they/it are referring to, and determine if we need a singular or plural pronoun. Here is the original sentence:

While  bear markets  certainly hurt institutional investors,  they  are potentially devastating for individual investors, whose nest eggs—in many cases representing the sole source of retirement funds—can plummet or even vanish entirely.

So – what is potentially devastating? Bear markets! Since “bear markets” is plural, we need to use plural pronouns to refer back to the plural antecedent. Let’s rule out the options that use singular pronouns:

(A)  they  are potentially devastating for individual investors, whose
(B)  they  can potentially devastate individual investors in that their
(C) for individual investors  they  are potentially devastating, because their
(D) for individual investors,  it  is potentially devastating in that their
(E)  it  can potentially devastate individual investors, whose

We can rule out options D & E  because they use a singular pronoun to refer to a plural antecedent, which doesn’t agree!

Since #2 on our list deals with intended meaning, which can be tricky, let’s move on to #3 on our list instead: how each option ends.  If we look carefully at each option, we can see a major difference between them:

(A) they are potentially devastating for individual investors , whose 
(B) they can potentially devastate individual investors  in that their 
(C) for individual investors they are potentially devastating , because their

We have another pronoun to deal with!  Remember that any time you see pronouns on the GMAT exam, it should be 100% clear to readers who/what the pronoun is referring back to. So – is it clear in options B & C that the pronoun “their” is clear for readers? Let’s plug each of the options into the original sentence, so we can look at it as a whole:

(A) While bear markets certainly hurt institutional investors,  they are potentially devastating for individual investors,  whose   nest eggs—in many cases representing the sole source of retirement funds—can plummet or even vanish entirely.

This is  CORRECT ! Instead of using a pronoun to attempt to refer back to “individual investors,” the writer uses a “which” phrase. Phrases that begin with “which” refer back to the nearest noun or noun phrase directly before the comma. In this case, it’s “individual investors,” which is exactly who owns the nest eggs the phrase is discussing!

(B) While bear markets certainly hurt institutional investors,  they can potentially devastate individual investors in that  their   nest eggs—in many cases representing the sole source of retirement funds—can plummet or even vanish entirely.

This is  INCORRECT  because it’s not 100% clear what the pronoun “their” is referring to: individual investors or bear markets? It could be either one! Remember – if it’s not 100% clear who owns the nest eggs, it’s probably not a good place to add in a pronoun.

(C) While bear markets certainly hurt institutional investors,  for individual investors they are potentially devastating , because their   nest eggs—in many cases representing the sole source of retirement funds—can plummet or even vanish entirely.

This is  INCORRECT  for a couple reasons. First, it has the same vague pronoun issue as option B – “their” isn’t clearly referring back to either bear markets or investors. Second, the conjunction “because” is a subordinating conjunction, which does NOT need a comma before it.

There you have it – option A was the correct choice all along!  By focusing on pronoun usage, we could easily rule out incorrect options and get to the right answer rather quickly!

Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.

jkuroda1 · Answer

I thought the same thing. A trick I use is to check if the confusing pronoun is in all of the answers and if it is then to just move on to find a different error

dave13 · Answer

CrackVerbalGMAT  why the second pronoun "their" should  logically   refer to "institutional investors".

dave13 · Answer

AndrewN hi

can you pls help with my question in the post above ( about why logically ) ?

Happy Easter

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  dave13 . I would be happy to help out on this one. The reason that  their  may logically refer only to investors becomes apparent after the underlined portion—bear markets cannot possess a  nest egg  (a term used somewhat casually in reference to savings), let alone  nest eggs . Consider (B) with each potential referent in place of the possessive pronoun:

b.1)   can potentially devastate individual investors in that  bear markets'  nest eggs... can plummet or even vanish entirely.

b.2)   can potentially devastate individual investors in that  individual investors'  nest eggs... can plummet or even vanish entirely.

I hope that clarifies the matter. Thank you for the Easter wishes.

- Andrew

TargetKellogg2024 · Answer

One of the reasons why I rejected option B is that it says "can potentially". Both of these words indicate some sort of ability. Therefore, using them both together seemed redundant to me. I chose to go for "are potentially" instead.

Can anyone please comment on this?

VeritasPrepBrian

While bear markets certainly hurt institutional investors, they are

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

While bear markets certainly hurt institutional investors, they are

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