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.

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.

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.

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?

Since Algeria is the closest noun, a reader would reasonably assume that the pronoun it is referring to Algeria.

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

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.

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

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.