Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.
See classesLearn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.
Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.
with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep
Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.
with
Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.
(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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
