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
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar
-
VP_Jim
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1223
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 3:29 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
- Thanked: 185 times
- Followed by:15 members
Hi simplyjat,
This question focuses on idioms and the clarity and conciseness of the sentence. Answer A can be eliminated because the phrase, "if they did not hold it," is awkward and wordy. Answer C uses the phrase, "was not ever secure," which is not idiomatically correct, and can be eliminated. Answer D is unclear in its meaning; what does "without that" refer to (Morocco or their hold on Morocco)? Similarly, the pronoun "it" in answer E is also ambiguous. The correct choice, answer B, is clear, concise, and idiomatically correct.
This question focuses on idioms and the clarity and conciseness of the sentence. Answer A can be eliminated because the phrase, "if they did not hold it," is awkward and wordy. Answer C uses the phrase, "was not ever secure," which is not idiomatically correct, and can be eliminated. Answer D is unclear in its meaning; what does "without that" refer to (Morocco or their hold on Morocco)? Similarly, the pronoun "it" in answer E is also ambiguous. The correct choice, answer B, is clear, concise, and idiomatically correct.
Jim S. | GMAT Instructor | Veritas Prep
I agree with your arguments against A, C, D and E. However, I do not understand why B is correct because it introduces 'it'. What does 'it' refer to?
Morocco?
"... without Morocco their grip on Algeria would never be secure"
Surely it should be the "occupation of Morocco" or the "control of Morocco".
What have I missed? I'm confused.
Morocco?
"... without Morocco their grip on Algeria would never be secure"
Surely it should be the "occupation of Morocco" or the "control of Morocco".
What have I missed? I'm confused.
What is the difference between pronoun it and pronoun that in above sentence? Can that not be used for above?
I understand that choice D is wrong for other reasons however want to confirm the reason for incorrect pronoun usage.
I understand that choice D is wrong for other reasons however want to confirm the reason for incorrect pronoun usage.
-
hemanth28
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:05 am
- Thanked: 9 times
- GMAT Score:680
A relative pronoun is usually used to introduce an adjective clause. that is a relative pronoun and should only be used to introduce a clause to to describe a noun not to refer to a noun.gmat_jul wrote:What is the difference between pronoun it and pronoun that in above sentence? Can that not be used for above?
I understand that choice D is wrong for other reasons however want to confirm the reason for incorrect pronoun usage.
--Correct me if i am wrong.
-
maihuna
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1578
- Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 1:49 am
- Thanked: 82 times
- Followed by:9 members
- GMAT Score:720
I will say, out of D and B, that vs it is not the actual issue, issue is following phrases/clauses:
without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure
without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria
secure about their grip is wrong compared to their grip on Alg will never be secure...
it could have been they could never be sure of their grip on algeria...
without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure
without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria
secure about their grip is wrong compared to their grip on Alg will never be secure...
it could have been they could never be sure of their grip on algeria...
Charged up again to beat the beast 
Hi Jim,VP_Jim wrote:Hi simplyjat,
This question focuses on idioms and the clarity and conciseness of the sentence. Answer A can be eliminated because the phrase, "if they did not hold it," is awkward and wordy. Answer C uses the phrase, "was not ever secure," which is not idiomatically correct, and can be eliminated. Answer D is unclear in its meaning; what does "without that" refer to (Morocco or their hold on Morocco)? Similarly, the pronoun "it" in answer E is also ambiguous. The correct choice, answer B, is clear, concise, and idiomatically correct.
I've my own reservations about B. Here 'it' would refer to 'Morocco' ... hence this sentence now tends to imply that without 'Morocco' (its physical existence), the French hold on Algeria wouldn't be secure..which is not correct ... the original sentence says that 'They wouldn't be secure about their grip on Algeria' without their 'hold' on Morocco not by the absence of Morocco!
This made me feel that statement B tends to distort the meaning of the sentence. So, 'A' is the next best construction.
Correct me if am wrong please.
-
martin.jonson007
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:46 am
- Thanked: 2 times
Hello,
here's the sentence with the correct choice B:
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 without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure
my question is: why is "it" considered to unambiguously refer to Morocco when it seems that it could have two antecedents Morocco and "the first half of the twentieth century"
thanks!
here's the sentence with the correct choice B:
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 without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure
my question is: why is "it" considered to unambiguously refer to Morocco when it seems that it could have two antecedents Morocco and "the first half of the twentieth century"
thanks!
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
as we've seen again and again and again and again, not all ambiguous pronouns are incorrect!tnaim wrote:Hello,
here's the sentence with the correct choice B:
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 without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure
my question is: why is "it" considered to unambiguously refer to Morocco when it seems that it could have two antecedents Morocco and "the first half of the twentieth century"
thanks!
so here's the simplest way of making the decision:
1) if you see an AMBIGUOUS PRONOUN that is SPLIT AGAINST A SPECIFIC NOUN, then eliminate the ambiguous pronoun and keep the specific noun.
for an example, see problem 68 in the blue OG 2nd edition verbal supplement, in which "them" is split against "these companies". in that type of situation, the specific noun is better than the ambiguous pronoun, so go ahead and narrow down to the choices that contain the 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.
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
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
also:
in general, OBJECTS OF PREPOSITIONS are very rarely the antecedents of pronouns. (i won't say never -- but rarely enough that, if you have to make a random guess, this is probably a pretty good standard by which to make such a guess.)
for instance:
if you have "the cat in the box", then it is very unlikely that a pronoun will be able to stand for "box".
see #29 in the blue verbal supplement, choices (a) and (b).
you can also apply this guideline here -- both "the strait of gibraltar" and "the first half of the 20th century" are objects of prepositions, so they are going to be generally disfavored as antecedents for pronouns.
in general, OBJECTS OF PREPOSITIONS are very rarely the antecedents of pronouns. (i won't say never -- but rarely enough that, if you have to make a random guess, this is probably a pretty good standard by which to make such a guess.)
for instance:
if you have "the cat in the box", then it is very unlikely that a pronoun will be able to stand for "box".
see #29 in the blue verbal supplement, choices (a) and (b).
you can also apply this guideline here -- both "the strait of gibraltar" and "the first half of the 20th century" are objects of prepositions, so they are going to be generally disfavored as antecedents for pronouns.
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
-
YellowSapphire
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:57 pm
- Location: India
- Thanked: 1 times
Hi Ron,lunarpower wrote:also:
in general, OBJECTS OF PREPOSITIONS are very rarely the antecedents of pronouns. (i won't say never -- but rarely enough that, if you have to make a random guess, this is probably a pretty good standard by which to make such a guess.)
for instance:
if you have "the cat in the box", then it is very unlikely that a pronoun will be able to stand for "box".
see #29 in the blue verbal supplement, choices (a) and (b).
you can also apply this guideline here -- both "the strait of gibraltar" and "the first half of the 20th century" are objects of prepositions, so they are going to be generally disfavored as antecedents for pronouns.
Is "enough that" correct idiom in GMAT?
Yellow Sapphire
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
heh. actually, no, it's not.YellowSapphire wrote:Hi Ron,lunarpower wrote:also:
in general, OBJECTS OF PREPOSITIONS are very rarely the antecedents of pronouns. (i won't say never -- but rarely enough that, if you have to make a random guess, this is probably a pretty good standard by which to make such a guess.)
for instance:
if you have "the cat in the box", then it is very unlikely that a pronoun will be able to stand for "box".
see #29 in the blue verbal supplement, choices (a) and (b).
you can also apply this guideline here -- both "the strait of gibraltar" and "the first half of the 20th century" are objects of prepositions, so they are going to be generally disfavored as antecedents for pronouns.
Is "enough that" correct idiom in GMAT?
it's good that you're noticing these things.
still, though, be aware that i'm definitely not trying to write my posts themselves in the style of the gmat.
in fact, there are all kinds of things i'll do in my posts that are incorrect in extremely formal written english (i.e., the type used in gmat sentences) -- i deliberately try to make my posts somewhat conversational in tone, in order to make them a little easier to read.
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
