Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 18:51 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 18:51
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3 
605-655 Level|   Grammatical/Rhetorical Construction|   Modifiers|   Pronouns|                  
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
 [1]
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
 [1]
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 20 Jul 2021, 23:16
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
heyrohit
I was a bit confused between A and B.

Decided to go with A because potentially already indicates the uncertainty and we don't need can.
(A) they are potentially devastating...
(B) they can potentially devastate...
Show more
Hi heyrohit,

Correct. Also, whose (A) is much better than their (B). The their after in that in option B seems to point to depressed property values.
avatar
faat99
avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2020
Last visit: 21 Mar 2022
Posts: 76
Own Kudos:
18
Given Kudos: 108
Location: United Kingdom
Schools: Judge '23 Said '23
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Schools: Judge '23 Said '23
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Posts: 76
Kudos: 18
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 16 Aug 2021, 13:03
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Many eliminated D/E immediately - but are those not dummy subject? (description of a scenario, no antecedent required). Appreciate any insights. Thanks.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,778
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,778
 [1]
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 23 Aug 2021, 10:57
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
faat99
Many eliminated D/E immediately - but are those not dummy subject? (description of a scenario, no antecedent required). Appreciate any insights. Thanks.
Show more
Well, there's certainly no rule to determine whether you're dealing with a dummy pronoun, but if you suspect you see one, ask whether the "it" in question could logically refer to a concrete noun. If "it" can, you're probably not looking at a dummy pronoun. If "it" can't, or seems to refer to an abstract state of affairs, then you MIGHT have one.

Here, have an example:

    It is trying to eat Tim's children. :-P

In this sentence, there's no way that "it" is referring to an abstract state of affairs. There is an entity with teeth somewhere in the vicinity, and Tim's kids are not safe. Not a dummy pronoun.

Here, have another example:

    It is clear that Tim is concerned about the jaguar that escaped from his ill-conceived "home zoo." :shock:

Now the "it" feels a little more abstract, right? It's not a concrete thing that's "clear," but rather, we're talking about a general state of affairs. So this "it" is a candidate to be a dummy pronoun.

In (E), we see "it can potentially devastate homeowners." It's not a general state of affairs that's causing the possible distress here. Some thing is responsible, right? It's the "depressed property values," a noun phrase we see earlier in the sentence. Moreover, we've already seen answer choices that capture that meaning by including the plural pronoun, "they."

Put another way, when I see "they" I know exactly what the sentence is trying to convey. But when I see "it" I start scrambling to find a referent that does't seem to be exist.

Because "it" doesn't seem to be describing a state of affairs, and because the pronoun also has no logical antecedent, it's safe to treat "it" as a concrete error.

I hope that helps!
avatar
faat99
avatar
Joined: 12 Jul 2020
Last visit: 21 Mar 2022
Posts: 76
Own Kudos:
18
 [1]
Given Kudos: 108
Location: United Kingdom
Schools: Judge '23 Said '23
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Schools: Judge '23 Said '23
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Posts: 76
Kudos: 18
 [1]
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 26 Aug 2021, 00:23
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Gmatninja, much appreciated for the insights.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 16 Sep 2021, 20:19
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
faat99
Many eliminated D/E immediately - but are those not dummy subject? (description of a scenario, no antecedent required). Appreciate any insights. Thanks.
Well, there's certainly no rule to determine whether you're dealing with a dummy pronoun, but if you suspect you see one, ask whether the "it" in question could logically refer to a concrete noun. If "it" can, you're probably not looking at a dummy pronoun. If "it" can't, or seems to refer to an abstract state of affairs, then you MIGHT have one.

Here, have an example:

    It is trying to eat Tim's children. :-P

In this sentence, there's no way that "it" is referring to an abstract state of affairs. There is an entity with teeth somewhere in the vicinity, and Tim's kids are not safe. Not a dummy pronoun.

Here, have another example:

    It is clear that Tim is concerned about the jaguar that escaped from his ill-conceived "home zoo." :shock:

Now the "it" feels a little more abstract, right? It's not a concrete thing that's "clear," but rather, we're talking about a general state of affairs. So this "it" is a candidate to be a dummy pronoun.

In (E), we see "it can potentially devastate homeowners." It's not a general state of affairs that's causing the possible distress here. Some thing is responsible, right? It's the "depressed property values," a noun phrase we see earlier in the sentence. Moreover, we've already seen answer choices that capture that meaning by including the plural pronoun, "they."

Put another way, when I see "they" I know exactly what the sentence is trying to convey. But when I see "it" I start scrambling to find a referent that does't seem to be exist.

Because "it" doesn't seem to be describing a state of affairs, and because the pronoun also has no logical antecedent, it's safe to treat "it" as a concrete error.

I hope that helps!
Show more

Hi GMATNinja - I see you mentioned "State of affairs" when asking yourself if the "IT" is a dummy pronoun or not

Is "State of affairs" the only time, we use a dummy pronoun ?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,778
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,778
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 25 Sep 2021, 07:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
GMATNinja
faat99
Many eliminated D/E immediately - but are those not dummy subject? (description of a scenario, no antecedent required). Appreciate any insights. Thanks.
Well, there's certainly no rule to determine whether you're dealing with a dummy pronoun, but if you suspect you see one, ask whether the "it" in question could logically refer to a concrete noun. If "it" can, you're probably not looking at a dummy pronoun. If "it" can't, or seems to refer to an abstract state of affairs, then you MIGHT have one.

Here, have an example:

    It is trying to eat Tim's children. :-P

In this sentence, there's no way that "it" is referring to an abstract state of affairs. There is an entity with teeth somewhere in the vicinity, and Tim's kids are not safe. Not a dummy pronoun.

Here, have another example:

    It is clear that Tim is concerned about the jaguar that escaped from his ill-conceived "home zoo." :shock:

Now the "it" feels a little more abstract, right? It's not a concrete thing that's "clear," but rather, we're talking about a general state of affairs. So this "it" is a candidate to be a dummy pronoun.

In (E), we see "it can potentially devastate homeowners." It's not a general state of affairs that's causing the possible distress here. Some thing is responsible, right? It's the "depressed property values," a noun phrase we see earlier in the sentence. Moreover, we've already seen answer choices that capture that meaning by including the plural pronoun, "they."

Put another way, when I see "they" I know exactly what the sentence is trying to convey. But when I see "it" I start scrambling to find a referent that does't seem to be exist.

Because "it" doesn't seem to be describing a state of affairs, and because the pronoun also has no logical antecedent, it's safe to treat "it" as a concrete error.

I hope that helps!

Hi GMATNinja - I see you mentioned "State of affairs" when asking yourself if the "IT" is a dummy pronoun or not

Is "State of affairs" the only time, we use a dummy pronoun ?
Show more
Well, "state of affairs" is just vague enough that it's tough to think of a scenario when it wouldn't apply. :)

But don't overthink it. If the pronoun is actively doing something that should be performed by a concrete entity, then the pronoun definitely requires a referent. If not, there's a chance you're looking at one of those very rare dummy pronouns.

If you're not sure, don't treat "it" as a decision point. Simple as that. And again: they're very rare on the GMAT, so don't lose too much sleep over this.
avatar
zeeb
avatar
Joined: 18 Aug 2021
Last visit: 14 Jan 2022
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 16
Location: India
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 23 Nov 2021, 18:34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
And here's a video explanation. Enjoy!
Show more



I have a question. It isn't necessarily related to the problem, but I have a doubt regarding Pronouns.

"While they can hurt some large investors, depressed property values...."

Can the above arrangement be grammatically correct? Maybe not in the above example, but is it grammatically correct to first mention a pronoun (for example in a dependant clause) followed by the noun it refers to?
If not generally the case, are there still any exceptions? I think I've heard such sentences quite a lot in speeches.
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 13 Mar 2022, 05:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
zeeb

"While they can hurt some large investors, depressed property values...."

Can the above arrangement be grammatically correct? Maybe not in the above example, but is it grammatically correct to first mention a pronoun (for example in a dependant clause) followed by the noun it refers to?
If not generally the case, are there still any exceptions? I think I've heard such sentences quite a lot in speeches.
Show more
Verb good observation zeeb. This is one of those very few cases where the usage of Pronoun before the antecedent, is acceptable.

More specifically, when a Pronoun appears as part of the introductory modifier (most notably dependent clauses, prepositional phrases or participial phrases), the pronoun grammatically refers to the Noun immediately after that introductory modifier.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses this aspect of Pronouns. Have attached the corresponding section of the book, for your reference.
Attachments

Pronoun in Introductory Modifier.pdf [614.73 KiB]
Downloaded 60 times

User avatar
Pankaj0901
User avatar
Joined: 18 Dec 2018
Last visit: 17 Dec 2022
Posts: 419
Own Kudos:
51
Given Kudos: 737
Location: India
WE:Account Management (Hospitality and Tourism)
Posts: 419
Kudos: 51
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 07 Jun 2022, 02:22
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Just a small doubt in Option C: Isn't "they" the subject of the second clause, just as in Option A, and would STILL unambiguously refer to the SUBJECT of the first clause? Does the second clause need to START with "they" in order to unambiguously refer to the SUBJECT of the first clause? Thanks GMATNinja

GMATNinja
(C) for homeowners they are potentially devastating, because their
The first "they" is in a funny position now, so it's less obvious that refers back to "depressed property values." But let's assume that it does refer to "depressed property values." Then "their" starts to become a problem, because it could easily refer back to "they", which refers back to "depressed property values". Again, this isn't necessarily the end of the world, but (A) is much, much clearer.
Show more

GMATNinja
It's pronoun week here in the verbal forum! For those of you who missed it, we went through this question -- and three other pronoun-related SC questions -- in our live YouTube session this past Monday. The video is available here.

Quote:
(A) they are potentially devastating for homeowners, whose
This looks pretty good. On the surface, you could argue that "they" is ambiguous: it could refer back to "investors" or "depressed property values." But as we've discussed in another recent QOTD, "they" is the subject of the second clause in the sentence, and it can refer unambiguously to the subject of the first clause ("depressed property values"). So let's keep (A).

Quote:
(B) they can potentially devastate homeowners in that their
"They" is quietly perfectly OK here (see above), but "their" is a problem: does it refer back to "homeowners"? Or does "their" refer back to "they", which refers back to "depressed property values"? Murky stuff.

There's also no reason to use "in that their", when we could use the much clearer modifier "whose." And "can potentially" is redundant. So (A) is definitely better than (B).

Quote:
(C) for homeowners they are potentially devastating, because their
The first "they" is in a funny position now, so it's less obvious that refers back to "depressed property values." But let's assume that it does refer to "depressed property values." Then "their" starts to become a problem, because it could easily refer back to "they", which refers back to "depressed property values". Again, this isn't necessarily the end of the world, but (A) is much, much clearer.

Quote:
(D) for homeowners, it is potentially devastating in that their
Oh good: a straight elimination. "It" has no referent. I'm happy. (D) is gone.

Quote:
(E) it can potentially devastate homeowners, whose
Same pronoun issue as (D), plus "can potentially" is redundant. So (E) is gone, too. (A) is the winner.
Show more
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,193
Own Kudos:
4,758
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,193
Kudos: 4,758
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 07 Jun 2022, 04:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Pankaj0901
Just a small doubt in Option C: Isn't "they" the subject of the second clause, just as in Option A, and would STILL unambiguously refer to the SUBJECT of the first clause? Does the second clause need to START with "they" in order to unambiguously refer to the SUBJECT of the first clause? Thanks GMATNinja

GMATNinja
(C) for homeowners they are potentially devastating, because their
The first "they" is in a funny position now, so it's less obvious that refers back to "depressed property values." But let's assume that it does refer to "depressed property values." Then "their" starts to become a problem, because it could easily refer back to "they", which refers back to "depressed property values". Again, this isn't necessarily the end of the world, but (A) is much, much clearer.

GMATNinja
It's pronoun week here in the verbal forum! For those of you who missed it, we went through this question -- and three other pronoun-related SC questions -- in our live YouTube session this past Monday. The video is available here.

Quote:
(A) they are potentially devastating for homeowners, whose
This looks pretty good. On the surface, you could argue that "they" is ambiguous: it could refer back to "investors" or "depressed property values." But as we've discussed in another recent QOTD, "they" is the subject of the second clause in the sentence, and it can refer unambiguously to the subject of the first clause ("depressed property values"). So let's keep (A).

Quote:
(B) they can potentially devastate homeowners in that their
"They" is quietly perfectly OK here (see above), but "their" is a problem: does it refer back to "homeowners"? Or does "their" refer back to "they", which refers back to "depressed property values"? Murky stuff.

There's also no reason to use "in that their", when we could use the much clearer modifier "whose." And "can potentially" is redundant. So (A) is definitely better than (B).

Quote:
(C) for homeowners they are potentially devastating, because their
The first "they" is in a funny position now, so it's less obvious that refers back to "depressed property values." But let's assume that it does refer to "depressed property values." Then "their" starts to become a problem, because it could easily refer back to "they", which refers back to "depressed property values". Again, this isn't necessarily the end of the world, but (A) is much, much clearer.

Quote:
(D) for homeowners, it is potentially devastating in that their
Oh good: a straight elimination. "It" has no referent. I'm happy. (D) is gone.

Quote:
(E) it can potentially devastate homeowners, whose
Same pronoun issue as (D), plus "can potentially" is redundant. So (E) is gone, too. (A) is the winner.
Show more


Hello Pankaj0901,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, independent clauses linked together need not have the same subject.

For example, "I bought my cat a toy, but he didn't like it." - here, the subject of the first clause is "I", but the subject of the second clause is "he", which refers to "cat".

The error in Option C is that it incorrectly uses the pronoun “they” and its possessive form “their” to refer to both “depressed property values” and “homeowners”, respectively; please remember, a pronoun and its derivatives can only be used to refer to one noun in a sentence.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
Pankaj0901
User avatar
Joined: 18 Dec 2018
Last visit: 17 Dec 2022
Posts: 419
Own Kudos:
51
Given Kudos: 737
Location: India
WE:Account Management (Hospitality and Tourism)
Posts: 419
Kudos: 51
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 07 Jun 2022, 04:28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thanks ExpertsGlobal5, but my query was different. I think I could not make it clear in my post. So, let me re-iterate just in case it was not clear.

In Option C, what is the SUBJECT of the second clause? (I understand Subjects can be different in the first and second clause.) According to me, it is "they" which is the subject, even though "they" is placed after "for homeowners". Or, is it "homeowners" which is the subject of the second clause? If it is "they", then why cannot it logically and unambiguously refer to the subject of the first clause which is "property values", since we know that the PRONOUN in the SUBJECT of the SECOND CLAUSE can UNAMBIGUOUSLY refer to the SUBJECT of the FIRST CLAUSE?


ExpertsGlobal5
Pankaj0901
Just a small doubt in Option C: Isn't "they" the subject of the second clause, just as in Option A, and would STILL unambiguously refer to the SUBJECT of the first clause? Does the second clause need to START with "they" in order to unambiguously refer to the SUBJECT of the first clause? Thanks GMATNinja

GMATNinja
(C) for homeowners they are potentially devastating, because their
The first "they" is in a funny position now, so it's less obvious that refers back to "depressed property values." But let's assume that it does refer to "depressed property values." Then "their" starts to become a problem, because it could easily refer back to "they", which refers back to "depressed property values". Again, this isn't necessarily the end of the world, but (A) is much, much clearer.
Show more
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,193
Own Kudos:
4,758
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,193
Kudos: 4,758
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 07 Jun 2022, 04:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Pankaj0901
Thanks ExpertsGlobal5, but my query was different. I think I could not make it clear in my post. So, let me re-iterate just in case it was not clear.

In Option C, what is the SUBJECT of the second clause? (I understand Subjects can be different in the first and second clause.) According to me, it is "they" which is the subject, even though "they" is placed after "for homeowners". Or, is it "homeowners" which is the subject of the second clause? If it is "they", then why cannot it logically and unambiguously refer to the subject of the first clause which is "property values", since we know that the PRONOUN in the SUBJECT of the SECOND CLAUSE can UNAMBIGUOUSLY refer to the SUBJECT of the FIRST CLAUSE?

Show more

Hello Pankaj0901,

Thank you for the clarification.

To answer your query, the subject of the second clause in Option C is "they", and we actually can unambiguously take "they" to refer to "property values", as it is the only noun that makes sense in place of "they"; remember, pronoun ambiguity does not apply if there is only one noun that the pronoun can logically refer to.

To understand the concept of "Exceptions to Pronoun Ambiguity", you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
Pankaj0901
User avatar
Joined: 18 Dec 2018
Last visit: 17 Dec 2022
Posts: 419
Own Kudos:
51
Given Kudos: 737
Location: India
WE:Account Management (Hospitality and Tourism)
Posts: 419
Kudos: 51
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 07 Jun 2022, 05:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thank you!

Now that we are on the same page that "they" refers to "property values", "their", derivative of "they", must also refer to "property values", thereby removing any ambiguity what "their" could refer to.

Basically, I am not able to comprehend the two quoted statements in red together.

ExpertsGlobal5

The error in Option C is that it incorrectly uses the pronoun “they” and its possessive form “their” to refer to both “depressed property values” and “homeowners”, respectively; please remember, a pronoun and its derivatives can only be used to refer to one noun in a sentence.
Show more

GMATNinja

"(B) they can potentially devastate homeowners in that their
They" is quietly perfectly OK here (see above), but "their" is a problem: does it refer back to "homeowners"? Or does "their" refer back to "they", which refers back to "depressed property values"? Murky stuff.
Show more

1. "their" is not ambiguous, as it is referring to "they", which is referring to "property values". But, now we will say that the INTENDED meaning is that "their" should logically refer to "homeowners".

2. If we DO know that the INTENDED and LOGICAL referent of "their" is "homeowners", what "ambiguity" we have been talking about in Option C as well as in Option B?

BOTH statements cannot go together. I am BADLY CONFUSED. ExpertsGlobal5 GMATNinja - Please save me. :(



ExpertsGlobal5
Pankaj0901
Thanks ExpertsGlobal5, but my query was different. I think I could not make it clear in my post. So, let me re-iterate just in case it was not clear.

In Option C, what is the SUBJECT of the second clause? (I understand Subjects can be different in the first and second clause.) According to me, it is "they" which is the subject, even though "they" is placed after "for homeowners". Or, is it "homeowners" which is the subject of the second clause? If it is "they", then why cannot it logically and unambiguously refer to the subject of the first clause which is "property values", since we know that the PRONOUN in the SUBJECT of the SECOND CLAUSE can UNAMBIGUOUSLY refer to the SUBJECT of the FIRST CLAUSE?


Hello Pankaj0901,

Thank you for the clarification.

To answer your query, the subject of the second clause in Option C is "they", and we actually can unambiguously take "they" to refer to "property values", as it is the only noun that makes sense in place of "they"; remember, pronoun ambiguity does not apply if there is only one noun that the pronoun can logically refer to.

To understand the concept of "Exceptions to Pronoun Ambiguity", you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
Show more
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,193
Own Kudos:
4,758
Given Kudos: 43
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 5,193
Kudos: 4,758
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 07 Jun 2022, 05:28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Pankaj0901
Thank you!

Now that we are on the same page that "they" refers to "property values", "their", derivative of "they", must also refer to "property values", thereby removing any ambiguity what "their" could refer to.

Basically, I am not able to comprehend the two quoted statements in red together.

ExpertsGlobal5

The error in Option C is that it incorrectly uses the pronoun “they” and its possessive form “their” to refer to both “depressed property values” and “homeowners”, respectively; please remember, a pronoun and its derivatives can only be used to refer to one noun in a sentence.

GMATNinja

"(B) they can potentially devastate homeowners in that their
They" is quietly perfectly OK here (see above), but "their" is a problem: does it refer back to "homeowners"? Or does "their" refer back to "they", which refers back to "depressed property values"? Murky stuff.

1. "their" is not ambiguous, as it is referring to "they", which is referring to "property values". But, now we will say that the INTENDED meaning is that "their" should logically refer to "homeowners".

2. If we DO know that the INTENDED and LOGICAL referent of "their" is "homeowners", what "ambiguity" we have been talking about in Option C as well as in Option B?

BOTH statements cannot go together. I am BADLY CONFUSED. ExpertsGlobal5 GMATNinja - Please save me. :(



ExpertsGlobal5
Pankaj0901
Thanks ExpertsGlobal5, but my query was different. I think I could not make it clear in my post. So, let me re-iterate just in case it was not clear.

In Option C, what is the SUBJECT of the second clause? (I understand Subjects can be different in the first and second clause.) According to me, it is "they" which is the subject, even though "they" is placed after "for homeowners". Or, is it "homeowners" which is the subject of the second clause? If it is "they", then why cannot it logically and unambiguously refer to the subject of the first clause which is "property values", since we know that the PRONOUN in the SUBJECT of the SECOND CLAUSE can UNAMBIGUOUSLY refer to the SUBJECT of the FIRST CLAUSE?


Hello Pankaj0901,

Thank you for the clarification.

To answer your query, the subject of the second clause in Option C is "they", and we actually can unambiguously take "they" to refer to "property values", as it is the only noun that makes sense in place of "they"; remember, pronoun ambiguity does not apply if there is only one noun that the pronoun can logically refer to.

To understand the concept of "Exceptions to Pronoun Ambiguity", you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
Show more

Hello Pankaj0901,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, it is our understanding of the question, as explained here, that the pronoun error in Options C and B is not one of ambiguity, but rather of multiple referents for a single pronoun; as we have mentioned, both answer choices incorrectly use the pronoun “they” and its possessive form “their” to refer to “depressed property values” and “homeowners”, respectively.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
User avatar
Pankaj0901
User avatar
Joined: 18 Dec 2018
Last visit: 17 Dec 2022
Posts: 419
Own Kudos:
51
Given Kudos: 737
Location: India
WE:Account Management (Hospitality and Tourism)
Posts: 419
Kudos: 51
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 07 Jun 2022, 07:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ExpertsGlobal5
To answer your query, it is our understanding of the question, as explained here, that the pronoun error in Options C and B is not one of ambiguity, but rather of multiple referents for a single pronoun; as we have mentioned, both answer choices incorrectly use the pronoun “they” and its possessive form “their” to refer to “depressed property values” and “homeowners”, respectively.
Show more

How is "the pronoun error ambiguity in option C and B" different from "multiple referents for a single pronoun"? Aren't both the same thing?? Looks like I am more confused. :cry:
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,778
 [3]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,778
 [3]
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 15 Jun 2022, 12:16
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Pankaj0901
ExpertsGlobal5
To answer your query, it is our understanding of the question, as explained here, that the pronoun error in Options C and B is not one of ambiguity, but rather of multiple referents for a single pronoun; as we have mentioned, both answer choices incorrectly use the pronoun “they” and its possessive form “their” to refer to “depressed property values” and “homeowners”, respectively.

How is "the pronoun error ambiguity in option C and B" different from "multiple referents for a single pronoun"? Aren't both the same thing?? Looks like I am more confused. :cry:
Show more
I wouldn't waste much energy worrying about how to label the issues you see, so long as you see why they're a problem. But for what it's worth, here are two the scenarios you might be confusing:

    1) Curry passed the ball to Green, and then he missed his 19th consecutive shot of the game.

Here, the pronoun "he" could have more than one referent, "Curry," or "Green." That's not necessarily a definite error, but it's a little bit confusing.

    2) Curry passed the ball to Green and then it ricocheted out of bounds, hitting the bottom of the backboard, its vibrations felt in the stands for a good 30 seconds.

Here, the first pronoun ("it") seems to refer to the "ball" and the second one ("its") seems to refer to the "backboard." Again, not a concrete error, but not crystal clear either.

To summarize: in the first example, we have multiple antecedents for one pronoun. In the second example, we have multiple pronouns referring to different antecedents. (B) and (C) are more like the second case above. "They" seems to refer to one thing and "their" seems to refer to another.

Is it important to differentiate between those scenarios? Not at all. All you need to do is ask yourself two questions:

    1) Is this clear and logical?
    2) Is there a better alternative?

Because the "their" in (B) and (C) isn't clear -- is it referring to the "property values", or a new antecedent, "the investors"? -- those options aren't as good as (A), in which "whose" unambiguously refers to "investors." I wouldn't necessarily argue that the pronouns are 100% wrong in (B) and (C), but they're unclear, and we have a much better alternative in (A).

I hope that clears things up!
User avatar
Pankaj0901
User avatar
Joined: 18 Dec 2018
Last visit: 17 Dec 2022
Posts: 419
Own Kudos:
51
Given Kudos: 737
Location: India
WE:Account Management (Hospitality and Tourism)
Posts: 419
Kudos: 51
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 15 Jun 2022, 23:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thank you GMATNinja. You have very nicely explained and cleared my doubts, as you always do.

My biggest takeaway:
In the sentence, a pronoun and its derivatives (such as in choice B & C), or the same mulitple pronouns, need not necessarily refer to the SAME noun. We need to look out for possible antecedents for each pronoun. In case there can be multiple logical antecedents for a pronoun, which we refer to as "pronoun ambiguity", we should look for a better option that is free of such an ambiguity.

Until I read your post, I used to think:
In B and C, "their" MUST refer to "they", which refers to "property values" (subject of the preceding clause), and so there is no pronoun ambiguity at all. BUT, then it was making the intended meaning non-sensical that "property values' equity is plunging and disappearing". Instead, the intended meaning should be "homeowners' equity is plunging and disappearing." And, how do we arrive at the conclusion that what is the correct intended meaning?: we take clues from the given sentence (option A), in which it is "homeowners" (not "property values") whose equity should be plunging and disappearing.

One quick question:
GMATNinja
Curry passed the ball to Green, and then he missed his 19th consecutive shot of the game.

Here, the pronoun "he" could have more than one referent, "Curry," or "Green." That's not necessarily a definite error, but it's a little bit confusing.
Show more

Shouldn't "he" refer to the subject of the preceding clause, which is "Curry", unambiguously? Why there is even a little bit of confusion? I thought the GMAT has been consistent with this logic -- when two clauses are conjuncted, the pronoun of the second clause refers to the subject (noun) of the preceding clause. I am assuming, you were just intending to give an example of how a single pronoun can have multiple logical noun referents.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,778
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,778
 [1]
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 18 Jun 2022, 10:04
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Pankaj0901
Thank you GMATNinja. You have very nicely explained and cleared my doubts, as you always do.

My biggest takeaway:
In the sentence, a pronoun and its derivatives (such as in choice B & C), or the same mulitple pronouns, need not necessarily refer to the SAME noun. We need to look out for possible antecedents for each pronoun. In case there can be multiple logical antecedents for a pronoun, which we refer to as "pronoun ambiguity", we should look for a better option that is free of such an ambiguity.

Until I read your post, I used to think:
In B and C, "their" MUST refer to "they", which refers to "property values" (subject of the preceding clause), and so there is no pronoun ambiguity at all. BUT, then it was making the intended meaning non-sensical that "property values' equity is plunging and disappearing". Instead, the intended meaning should be "homeowners' equity is plunging and disappearing." And, how do we arrive at the conclusion that what is the correct intended meaning?: we take clues from the given sentence (option A), in which it is "homeowners" (not "property values") whose equity should be plunging and disappearing.

One quick question:
GMATNinja
Curry passed the ball to Green, and then he missed his 19th consecutive shot of the game.

Here, the pronoun "he" could have more than one referent, "Curry," or "Green." That's not necessarily a definite error, but it's a little bit confusing.

Shouldn't "he" refer to the subject of the preceding clause, which is "Curry", unambiguously? Why there is even a little bit of confusion? I thought the GMAT has been consistent with this logic -- when two clauses are conjuncted, the pronoun of the second clause refers to the subject (noun) of the preceding clause. I am assuming, you were just intending to give an example of how a single pronoun can have multiple logical noun referents.
Show more
Glad to hear that our last post was helpful!

That's a good question. in short, there's no "rule" stating that the pronoun MUST refer to the subject of the preceding clause. It's just a natural place to look for the referent. So if you have multiple options and the subject of the preceding clause is the most logical choice, then your pronouns are probably pretty clear.

But that doesn't mean that it's wrong if the pronoun refers to something else. For example:

    "The ball hit Klay in the head, and he lost consciousness."

Obviously it was Klay, not the ball, who lost consciousness. That's a bit less natural, but it's certainly not a definitive error.

For an official example, check out this question (and our post about the pronouns).
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,835
Own Kudos:
986
Posts: 18,835
Kudos: 986
While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they 19 Jun 2023, 02:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
   1   2   3 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts