Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:11 am
Ron,

Can you please explain why E is wrong.

Is it because of the usage of 'if' ?

E is saying properly : if they did not hold it
while B is just saying : without it -> i.e. no indication of the word hold

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Fri Jul 30, 2010 3:48 am
paes wrote:Ron,

Can you please explain why E is wrong.

Is it because of the usage of 'if' ?

E is saying properly : if they did not hold it
while B is just saying : without it -> i.e. no indication of the word hold
(e) is definitely inferior to the correct answer, but not for any 100% hard concrete reasons that i can find.

two things, though:
(1) "never would their grip on Algeria be secure" -- there's no reason for this sort of reverse construction; it's poetic language. this should be written as a forward construction: "their grip on algeria would never be secure."

--> i'm NOT saying that reverse construction is wrong in general; i'm just saying that it doesn't make sense in this particular sentence.
i can think of 2 cases in which a reverse construction is preferred or required:
i) "there is..." / "there are..." (the most common reverse construction in the english language, by far)
ii) a situation in which you want the same word to be the subject of 2 verbs. the way you do this is to create the 1st verb with a reverse construction, and then create the 2nd verb with a "that"/"which" clause.
e.g., on the table are two cell phones that were left at yesterday's meeting.
this sentence doesn't have either of these two construction types, so there's no reason to write it with a reverse subject-verb construction.

--

(2) remember that pronoun ambiguity isn't an absolute rule, but the "it" at the end of this sentence is very unclear.
i'm a native speaker and a professional writer, and i had to read that choice at least 4 times before i figured out that "it" is supposed to be morocco, not algeria.

in most cases in which ambiguous pronouns are tolerated, you'll find that it's incredibly clear what the pronoun is supposed to stand for.
therefore, if you can't tell what a pronoun is supposed to stand for, without reading the choice several times, then the pronoun is suspicious. (here i literally mean "can't tell". i don't just mean grammatical ambiguity -- i mean that you actually have no idea what the pronoun is supposed to stand for, when you first look at the sentence.)
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:36 am
Thanks Ron for such a nice detailed explanation.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:24 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM
GMAT Score:710

by ajayiitr » Wed Aug 25, 2010 8:45 pm
There is "If...then" conditional construction in this sentence that got me confused.

I understood from MGMAT guide that in the conditional construction that happened in the past tense, we would use If past perfect tense, then conditional perfect tense. Eg: If Sophie had eaten pizza yesterday, she would have become ill.

This sentence also uses conditional in the past tense, but uses construction: "If they did not hold it, their grip would always be insecure."

Can someone tell me whether both constructions are right and if there is any case where one would be used and not other?

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:42 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by kashefian » Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:58 pm
HOWEVER,
2) if you see an ambiguous pronoun that is NOT split against a specific noun, then DON'T eliminate!
for an example, see problem 21 in the blue OG 2nd ed verbal supplement (in which the correct answer contains a technically ambiguous pronoun).
or see the problem in this thread!
in the problem in this thread, it" is not split against a specific noun (i.e., there is no split between "it" and "morocco"), so ambiguity is not sufficient grounds for eliminating that pronoun.
I don't understand what you mean by " it is not split against a specific noun ".
Would you please explain what "it" refers to?

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Thu Nov 04, 2010 3:05 am
simplyjat wrote:Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar, Morocco was also of interest to the French throughout the first half of the twentieth century because they assumed that if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure.

(A) if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure
(B) without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure
(C) their grip on Algeria was not ever secure if they did not hold it
(D) without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria
(E) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it

OA B
Here is the approach that I would use:

In A and C, was is the incorrect tense. Since the sentence is discussing a conditional situation, the tense needed is would. Eliminate A and C.

In D, secure about is not idiomatic. Eliminate D.

In E, the pronoun it seems to refer to Algeria (the closest noun), but the intended meaning of the sentence is that the French needed to hold onto Morocco. Eliminate E.

The correct answer is B.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:42 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by kashefian » Thu Nov 04, 2010 10:47 am
Here is the approach that I would use:

In A and C, was is the incorrect tense. Since the sentence is discussing a conditional situation, the tense needed is would. Eliminate A and C.

In D, secure about is not idiomatic. Eliminate D.

In E, the pronoun it seems to refer to Algeria (the closest noun), but the intended meaning of the sentence is that the French needed to hold onto Morocco. Eliminate E.

The correct answer is B.
The problem is I eliminated B for the exact same reason that you eliminated E. I still cannot understand why we can eliminate E because of pronoun ambiguity but we cannot eliminate B for the same reason.

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Thu Nov 04, 2010 11:50 am
kashefian wrote:
Here is the approach that I would use:

In A and C, was is the incorrect tense. Since the sentence is discussing a conditional situation, the tense needed is would. Eliminate A and C.

In D, secure about is not idiomatic. Eliminate D.

In E, the pronoun it seems to refer to Algeria (the closest noun), but the intended meaning of the sentence is that the French needed to hold onto Morocco. Eliminate E.

The correct answer is B.
The problem is I eliminated B for the exact same reason that you eliminated E. I still cannot understand why we can eliminate E because of pronoun ambiguity but we cannot eliminate B for the same reason.
Answer choice E:

...never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it...

The error in E is not that the pronoun it is ambiguous but that -- grammatically -- it is referring to the wrong thing (Algeria). Since Algeria is the closest noun, a reader would reasonably assume that the pronoun it is referring to Algeria. The phrase grip on Algeria compounds the problem, making us think even more that Algeria is what the French needed to hold. The intended meaning of the sentence is that the French needed to hold Morocco. Hence, E can be safely eliminated.

Here's B:

Morocco was also of interest to the French....because they assumed that without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure.

I think it's clear in the sentence above that the pronoun it is referring to Morocco. What other noun could the pronoun it be replacing?
Last edited by GMATGuruNY on Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:01 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
kashefian wrote:
Here is the approach that I would use:

In A and C, was is the incorrect tense. Since the sentence is discussing a conditional situation, the tense needed is would. Eliminate A and C.

In D, secure about is not idiomatic. Eliminate D.

In E, the pronoun it seems to refer to Algeria (the closest noun), but the intended meaning of the sentence is that the French needed to hold onto Morocco. Eliminate E.

The correct answer is B.
The problem is I eliminated B for the exact same reason that you eliminated E. I still cannot understand why we can eliminate E because of pronoun ambiguity but we cannot eliminate B for the same reason.
Answer choice E:

...never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it...

The error in E is not that the pronoun it is ambiguous but that -- grammatically -- it is referring to the wrong thing (Algeria). Since Algeria is the closest noun, a reader would reasonably assume that the pronoun it is referring to Algeria. The phrase grip on Algeria compounds the problem, making us think even more that Algeria is what the French needed to hold. The intended meaning of the sentence is that the French needed to hold Morocco. Hence, E can be safely eliminated.

Here's C:

Morocco was also of interest to the French....because they assumed that without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure.

I think it's clear in the sentence above that the pronoun it is referring to Morocco. What other noun could the pronoun it be replacing?
Hi GmatGuruNY, The reason you stated for eliminating E is
Since Algeria is the closest noun, a reader would reasonably assume that the pronoun it is referring to Algeria.
But, in C too, the pronoun "it " is close to Algeria
I Seek Explanations Not Answers

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:09 am
mundasingh123 wrote:
GMATGuruNY wrote:
kashefian wrote:
Here is the approach that I would use:

In A and C, was is the incorrect tense. Since the sentence is discussing a conditional situation, the tense needed is would. Eliminate A and C.

In D, secure about is not idiomatic. Eliminate D.

In E, the pronoun it seems to refer to Algeria (the closest noun), but the intended meaning of the sentence is that the French needed to hold onto Morocco. Eliminate E.

The correct answer is B.
The problem is I eliminated B for the exact same reason that you eliminated E. I still cannot understand why we can eliminate E because of pronoun ambiguity but we cannot eliminate B for the same reason.
Answer choice E:

...never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it...

The error in E is not that the pronoun it is ambiguous but that -- grammatically -- it is referring to the wrong thing (Algeria). Since Algeria is the closest noun, a reader would reasonably assume that the pronoun it is referring to Algeria. The phrase grip on Algeria compounds the problem, making us think even more that Algeria is what the French needed to hold. The intended meaning of the sentence is that the French needed to hold Morocco. Hence, E can be safely eliminated.

Here's C:

Morocco was also of interest to the French....because they assumed that without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure.

I think it's clear in the sentence above that the pronoun it is referring to Morocco. What other noun could the pronoun it be replacing?
Hi GmatGuruNY, The reason you stated for eliminating E is
Since Algeria is the closest noun, a reader would reasonably assume that the pronoun it is referring to Algeria.
But, in C too, the pronoun "it " is close to Algeria
The post you've quoted had a typo that I've since corrected. I was referring not to C but to B, in which it closely follows Algeria.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 9:09 am
Location: pune
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:3 members

by amit2k9 » Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:19 am
B it is. Hypothetical subjunctive usage of if requires a were rather than was.
since its an assumption then would 'conditional' statement is correct usage.
For Understanding Sustainability,Green Businesses and Social Entrepreneurship visit -https://aamthoughts.blocked/
(Featured Best Green Site Worldwide-https://bloggers.com/green/popular/page2)

Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Wed Jun 22, 2011 2:46 am
Here's B:

Morocco was also of interest to the French....because they assumed that without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure.
Hi GmatGuru, Here the pronoun it is seperated from Algeria by 3 words , so it could refer to Algeria .Why isn't the pronoun reference a problem here since you eliminated E for exactly the same reason
I Seek Explanations Not Answers

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 15539
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: New York, NY
Thanked: 13060 times
Followed by:1906 members
GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:41 am
mundasingh123 wrote:
Here's B:

Morocco was also of interest to the French....because they assumed that without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure.
Hi GmatGuru, Here the pronoun it is seperated from Algeria by 3 words , so it could refer to Algeria .Why isn't the pronoun reference a problem here since you eliminated E for exactly the same reason
In B, it is preceded only by Morocco: Morocco was of interest to the French...because without it.

In E, it is preceded both by Morocco and by Algeria: Morocco was of interest to the French...their grip on Algeria...if they did not hold it.

In E, it could refer either to Morocco OR to Algeria. To convey the intended meaning, it must refer to Morocco, but since Algeria is closer -- as you pointed out in your post -- many readers will assume that it refers to Algeria. Since B avoids this ambiguity, eliminate E and choose B.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.

As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.

For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:14 am
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Wed Jun 22, 2011 4:59 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
mundasingh123 wrote:
Here's B:

Morocco was also of interest to the French....because they assumed that without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure.
Hi GmatGuru, Here the pronoun it is seperated from Algeria by 3 words , so it could refer to Algeria .Why isn't the pronoun reference a problem here since you eliminated E for exactly the same reason
In B, it is preceded only by Morocco: Morocco was of interest to the French...because without it.

In E, it is preceded both by Morocco and by Algeria: Morocco was of interest to the French...their grip on Algeria...if they did not hold it.

In E, it could refer either to Morocco OR to Algeria. To convey the intended meaning, it must refer to Morocco, but since Algeria is closer -- as you pointed out in your post -- many readers will assume that it refers to Algeria. Since B avoids this ambiguity, eliminate E and choose B.
So Gmat Guru , a pronoun could only refer to a noun that precedes and not a noun that comes after it
I Seek Explanations Not Answers

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 116
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 7:52 pm
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:2 members

by Sanjay2706 » Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:51 pm
IMO B is right.