Sentence Correction

ngk4mba3236 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote: The implied subject may also precede the verbless clause.
A better rule:
A subordinate verbless clause must refer to the same subject as the main clause.

based on the above precise rule, can you please let me know whether I'm correct in the following official qs:

Restorers say that if allowed to remove and replace the discolored layer of varnish on the Mona Lisa, the colors Leonardo da Vinci painted nearly five hundred years ago will once again shine through.
----> here the underlined part beginning with IF is a verb-less clause creating ambiguity because its implied subject structure wise(re grammatically) can be either "Restorers" or "the colors", but meaning wise the implied subject of this verb-less clause should be "Restorers" (because it seems that we've two main clauses here -- one beginning with "Restorers" and another with "the colors")
right ?

so,this ambiguity is overcome in the oa in which verb-less clause beginning with IF is converted to a normal clause - if they are and the antecedent of "they" is "Restorers".

is this analysis correct ?

GMATGuruNY wrote: In my post above, I've amended the rule to make it even more precise:
A subordinate verbless clause must refer to the same subject as the main clause that the subordinate verbless clause serves to modify.

Original sentence:
Restorers say that if allowed to remove and replace the discolored layer of varnish on the Mona Lisa, the colors Leonardo da Vinci painted nearly five hundred years ago will once again shine through.
Here, the if-clause serves to modify the clause in red.
Thus, the implied subject of the if-clause is the colors (the subject of the red clause).

GMATGuruNY wrote:Since in most cases a pronoun serves to refer to an antecedent -- a PRECEDING noun -- a reader of the OA will construe that they serves to refer to restorers (the preceding plural noun).

ngk4mba3236 wrote:
so,on GMAT in a if-then construction, the if-clause will ALWAYS be the subordinate clause modifying the main clause ---> then-clause. am I correct ?

GMATGuruNY wrote:Since in most cases a pronoun serves to refer to an antecedent -- a PRECEDING noun -- a reader of the OA will construe that they serves to refer to restorers (the preceding plural noun).

is it ALWAYS true on GMAT ?
I think,we can have antecedent of a pronoun in a following noun as well.

p.s: just curious to know that as for my analysis https://www.beatthegmat.com/700-rainfore ... tml#771614, is this analysis completely incorrect or slightly deflecting/inaccurate ?

ngk4mba3236 wrote:option B: Restorers say that if it is allowed to remove and replace the discolored layer of varnish on the Mona Lisa, the colors Leonardo da Vinci painted nearly five hundred years ago will once again shine through.

hi experts,
can you please share your analysis on B ?

why the pronoun "it" in choice B can't be considered a placeholder "it" ? why can't we consider the referent of placeholder "it" the following infinitive phrase "to remove" ?

GMATGuruNY wrote:When the subject pronoun it serves as an expletive referring to the following infinitive, the verb attributed to it must be a form of to be (is, are, etc.).
This form of to be may NOT be followed by a participle (VERBed or VERBing).
Incorrect:
It WAS EXPECTED to like Mary.
Correct:
It WAS easy to like Mary.

B: it is allowed to remove
Here, since it is followed by FORM OF TO BE + VERBed, we cannot interpret that it refers to the following infinitive (to remove).

ngk4mba3236 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:When the subject pronoun it serves as an expletive referring to the following infinitive, the verb attributed to it must be a form of to be (is, are, etc.).
This form of to be may NOT be followed by a participle (VERBed or VERBing).
Incorrect:
It WAS EXPECTED to like Mary.
Correct:
It WAS easy to like Mary.

B: it is allowed to remove
Here, since it is followed by FORM OF TO BE + VERBed, we cannot interpret that it refers to the following infinitive (to remove).

gmatguru,
does this always hold good in GMAT SC ?

I mean, can there be any cases in which the following structure is observed : subject pronoun it + FORM OF TO BE + VERBed or VERBing ?

do we have any such instances ?

ngk4mba3236 wrote:so from the above discussions, we can say that the followings will mostly/generally hold true in GMAT SC:

1. EXPLETIVE IT + FORM OF TO BE + VERBed is a VIABLE structure when the EXPLETIVE IT refers to the following that-clause.

2. EXPLETIVE IT + FORM OF TO BE + VERBed is NOT VIABLE structure when the EXPLETIVE IT refers to the following infinitive .

3. EXPLETIVE IT + FORM OF TO BE + VERBing is NOT VIABLE structure, whatever the EXPLETIVE IT refers to.

is this understanding correct ?