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
Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar
GMAT/MBA Expert
- lunarpower
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3380
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
- Thanked: 2256 times
- Followed by:1535 members
- GMAT Score:800
(e) is definitely inferior to the correct answer, but not for any 100% hard concrete reasons that i can find.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
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
--
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
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:24 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
- GMAT Score:710
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?
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?
- kashefian
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:42 am
- Thanked: 4 times
- Followed by:1 members
I don't understand what you mean by " it is not split against a specific noun ".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.
Would you please explain what "it" refers to?
- GMATGuruNY
- 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
Here is the approach that I would use: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
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
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
- kashefian
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:42 am
- Thanked: 4 times
- Followed by:1 members
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.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.
- GMATGuruNY
- 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
Answer choice E:kashefian wrote: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.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.
...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
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
Hi GmatGuruNY, The reason you stated for eliminating E isGMATGuruNY wrote:Answer choice E:kashefian wrote: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.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.
...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?
But, in C too, the pronoun "it " is close to AlgeriaSince Algeria is the closest noun, a reader would reasonably assume that the pronoun it is referring to Algeria.
I Seek Explanations Not Answers
- GMATGuruNY
- 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
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.mundasingh123 wrote:Hi GmatGuruNY, The reason you stated for eliminating E isGMATGuruNY wrote:Answer choice E:kashefian wrote: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.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.
...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?But, in C too, the pronoun "it " is close to AlgeriaSince Algeria is the closest noun, a reader would reasonably assume that the pronoun it is referring to 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
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
- amit2k9
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 9:09 am
- Location: pune
- Thanked: 36 times
- Followed by:3 members
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.
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)
(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
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 reasonHere'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 Seek Explanations Not Answers
- GMATGuruNY
- 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
In B, it is preceded only by Morocco: Morocco was of interest to the French...because without it.mundasingh123 wrote: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 reasonHere's B:
Morocco was also of interest to the French....because they assumed that without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure.
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
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
So Gmat Guru , a pronoun could only refer to a noun that precedes and not a noun that comes after itGMATGuruNY wrote:In B, it is preceded only by Morocco: Morocco was of interest to the French...because without it.mundasingh123 wrote: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 reasonHere's B:
Morocco was also of interest to the French....because they assumed that without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure.
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.
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