Sentence Correction

Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them.

A. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them
B. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete it
C. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete
D. 700,000 artisans took more than 36 years to complete
E. to complete them took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years

hey guys try this one...do explain me your logic!!

OA l8r

IMO C

A, E = they/them for army = wrong.

Army (is X years old) and (took Y years to complete.)

IMO because of parallelism....is is parallel to took. We do not need "it" at the end as the above parallelism show.

Agree with Mohit... it should be 'C' ... by the way can you pls share the source of this question?

The answer shouldn't be B since 'it' is unneeded here; the sentence already has an established subject.

IMO - C

OA and source of the question please?

Domnu wrote:The answer shouldn't be B since 'it' is unneeded here; the sentence already has an established subject.

Hi Domnu,

Can you please shed some light on this rule....because many times I find myself struggling whether to put "it"/they or not ?

Thanks
Mohit

there is a 2/3 split in this question ,
and it/them is ambigous here , its not exactly clear which they are reffering to , so answer would be (C)

ok ...then guys consider this example..

Like the Egyptian pharaohs, Shih Huangdi started to build his tomb the moment he became king and some 700,000 conscripts worked for 36 years to complete it.

This sentence is correct..and now tell me why "it" is used here???

Give me some good logic!!!!!

now the whole sentence is rephrase
Like the Egyptian pharaohs, Shih Huangdi started to build his tomb the moment he became king and some 700,000 conscripts worked for 36 years to complete it.

now here "it" is completely refering to 700,000 conscripts
and in the above question its just making confuse , well anyways i dont know
what is the Official Answer ?

geet wrote:ok ...then guys consider this example..

Like the Egyptian pharaohs, Shih Huangdi started to build his tomb the moment he became king and some 700,000 conscripts worked for 36 years to complete it.

This sentence is correct..and now tell me why "it" is used here???

Give me some good logic!!!!!

Try removing the extra stuff in both the sentences and look the sentences in their simplest form ...

You will see sentences look like as follows

The army is more than 2,000 years old and took more than 36 years to complete. - THIS SENTENCE is pointing two things about the army ... how old the army is and how long did it take to complete? It can further be simplified as
The army is more than 2,000 years old.
The army took more than 36 years to complete. (DO YOU NEED IT?)

Shih Huangdi started to build his tomb and some 700,000 worked for 36 years to complete it. --- TWO INDEPENDENT Clause joined by the conjunction "AND"

Will it make sense to write - "Some 700,000 worked for 36 years to complete" ...

I presume answer to be "B". "It" is needed to complete the sentence.
What is OA ?

if in original question, option D would had a extra "it" at the end...as below.

then would it have been liked by GMAT ?

or there is still some problem in the same ?

D. 700,000 artisans took more than 36 years to complete "it"

IMO C.

The use of "it" breaks the parallelism of the sentence.

Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and (the army of terra-cotta warriors) took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete.

An "it" is not required. Whereas in the example in discussion.

Like the Egyptian pharaohs, Shih Huangdi started to build his tomb the moment he became king and some 700,000 conscripts worked for 36 years to complete it.

This has two independent clauses joined by "and". Shih Huangdi started to build.. and some 700,000 conscripts worked on it.

If we remove the "it" the second clause would refer to Shih Huangdi. His tomb was built by conscripts and not he himself.

Please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.

geet wrote:Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them.

A. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them
B. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete it
C. took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete
D. 700,000 artisans took more than 36 years to complete
E. to complete them took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years

hey guys try this one...do explain me your logic!!

OA l8r

IMO=C

Eliminate D & E, wordy and unstructured.

B) it has no referent.

A) them is for plural when the army is a singular collective noun.

BlindVision wrote: B) it has no referent.

Hi blindvision,

isn't it refers to army here ? What is the problem with it refering to army here ?