Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar

Expert replies

GMATGuruNY: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 15539; Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pmFollowed by: 1906 members; Location: New York, NY; Thanked: 13060 times; GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Thu Jun 23, 2011 4:01 am

mundasingh123 wrote:So Gmat Guru , a pronoun could only refer to a noun that precedes and not a noun that comes after it

Generally, a pronoun refers to a noun that precedes it.
If there is no preceding noun, a pronoun may refer to a noun that follows, as in Q7 in the OG12:

As its sales of computer products have surpassed those of measuring instruments, the company...

Such is not the case with answer choice B above. Since there is a preceding noun (Morocco), it cannot refer to Algeria, the noun that follows.

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

Like this post

greatps24: Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts; Posts: 11; Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:45 am

by greatps24 » Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:09 am

GMATGuruNY wrote:
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.

how did you derive that this is a conditional situation?

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.

There is no "if ..then" in B. how did you derive that this is a conditional situation?

Like this post

rishijhawar: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 138; Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:24 pm; Thanked: 1 times

by rishijhawar » Sun Jul 10, 2011 11:04 pm

Ron, can you please explain OBJECTS OF PREPOSITIONS in a little more detail? May be on OG#29-Blue supplement example.
Also, I eliminated choice A because there is a tense error (incorrect use of "was" for a future event-"grip on Algeria"). Can you please explain this error more in the light of IF ... THEN usage.
Lastly, if choice A were to be correct (using IF....THEN): what's the revised version of A.

Like this post

rishijhawar: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 138; Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:24 pm; Thanked: 1 times

by rishijhawar » Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:42 pm

GMATGuruNY, can you please explain why 'that' in D is in correct. To me THAT correctly refers to Morocco as does IT (in A). Is there any other reason to exclude D.

Like this post

rishijhawar: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 138; Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 8:24 pm; Thanked: 1 times

by rishijhawar » Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:25 pm

rishijhawar wrote:GMATGuruNY, can you please explain why 'that' in D is in correct. To me THAT correctly refers to Morocco as does IT (in A). Is there any other reason to exclude D.

Sorry, I saw in one of your post above that D has idiom error (secure about). Still, assuming D used correct idiom, can we conclude THAT refers to Morocco.
Lastly, could you please list correct idiom of Secure. Sorry. I googled and found 'secure with' is also incorrect but couldn't find the correct idiom with Secure.

Like this post

joymannasen: Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts; Posts: 2; Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:36 am

by joymannasen » Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:31 am

Hi,
The corrected sentence now reads.
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 query is regarding use of the pronoun 'They' in the sentence above. As far as I understand, the 'They' refers to 'the French'. As a a collective noun shouldn't this be singular?

Like this post

Junebug: Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts; Posts: 8; Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:02 am; Thanked: 2 times

by Junebug » Fri Aug 19, 2011 7:20 pm

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
-> Changes the original meaning. French was interested in Morocco because they thought it would influence their grip on Algeria not because it actually influenced their grip on Algeria. It is just an assumption not historical truth. So it must be "would be" not "was".

(B) without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure
It could be confused because of "it", but there is no problem if we substitute Morocco instead of it.
Clear and concise. OK

(C) their grip on Algeria was not ever secure if they did not hold it
Sames as (A). Must use "would be" instead of "was". Also in this sentence it makes sense when we substitute Algeria instead of it. So the meaning is not clear.

(D) without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria
Pronoun should be always clear, so we have to use pronoun "it" for Morocco not "that".
Pronoun that is for clauses.
Also "Assumed that, without that" and "could never be" -> GMAT is allergic to this kind of expression. Always bad.

(E) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it
No problem on sentence structure but it is same as (C). "it" can also mean Algeria. Unclear.

Like this post

tanviet: Legendary Member; Posts: 1404; Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pmFollowed by: 2 members; Thanked: 18 times

by tanviet » Mon Dec 05, 2011 11:59 pm

GMATGuruNY wrote:
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.

pls,help.
in general grammar, I see 2 following structures are permitted.

if X did happen, Y Did
if X did happen, Y would do

but inhere you said the first structure is wrong and so A and C is wrong. Dose the thing mean gmat grammar permit only the second structure?

Like this post

tanviet: Legendary Member; Posts: 1404; Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pmFollowed by: 2 members; Thanked: 18 times

by tanviet » Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:55 am

GMATGuruNY wrote:
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.

great explanation. However, please, make clear the following

A and C is wrong because the tense in A and C (if ...did, then...did) is used to show facts/habit

if anyone got good gmat score, he or she was admitted to good business schools. (this is fact in the past)

the conditional is different.

if I got good gmat score, I would be admitted to good business school (this is the hypothetical)

Is my thinking correct?

Like this post

vietmoi999: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 96; Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 6:48 am

by vietmoi999 » Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:33 am

GMATGuruNY wrote:
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.

Dear expert, pls help
we have 2 pattern which are different
if we do this, we (will)have that
this is a fact which mean "everytime we do this, we have that". This sentence is not conditional

why
they assume that every time they do not hold it, their grip is not secure
is incorrect.
we can assume a fact. for examle
"I assumed he came" is correct.

why in this sentence we can not use a fact after "assumes" ?. Why do we have to use "conditiona" after "assume". This is the reason A and C is eliminated.

pls help

Like this post

GMATGuruNY: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 15539; Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pmFollowed by: 1906 members; Location: New York, NY; Thanked: 13060 times; GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:55 am

vietmoi999 wrote:Dear expert, pls help
we have 2 pattern which are different
if we do this, we (will)have that
this is a fact which mean "everytime we do this, we have that". This sentence is not conditional

why
they assume that every time they do not hold it, their grip is not secure
is incorrect.
we can assume a fact. for examle
"I assumed he came" is correct.

why in this sentence we can not use a fact after "assumes" ?. Why do we have to use "conditiona" after "assume". This is the reason A and C is eliminated.

pls help

To express an action that will take place in the future relative to a PRESENT action, we use will:
John ASSUMES that the plan WILL work.
Here, John assumes (right now) that the plan WILL work (in the future, at some point AFTER he assumes).

To express an action that will take place in the future relative to a PAST action, we use would:
John ASSUMED that the plan WOULD work.
Here, John assumed (in the past) that the plan WOULD work (in the future, at some point AFTER he assumed).
This is known as the future-in-the-past.

The SC above requires the future-in-the-past:
The French ASSUMED (in the past) that their grip WOULD never be secure (in the future, at some point after they assumed).

Last edited by GMATGuruNY on Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Like this post

vietmoi999: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 96; Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2013 6:48 am

by vietmoi999 » Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:02 pm

GMATGuruNY wrote:
vietmoi999 wrote:Dear expert, pls help
we have 2 pattern which are different
if we do this, we (will)have that
this is a fact which mean "everytime we do this, we have that". This sentence is not conditional

why
they assume that every time they do not hold it, their grip is not secure
is incorrect.
we can assume a fact. for examle
"I assumed he came" is correct.

why in this sentence we can not use a fact after "assumes" ?. Why do we have to use "conditiona" after "assume". This is the reason A and C is eliminated.

pls help
The use of assumed is not the issue.
The issue here is WHAT the French assumed.
The French did not assume a fact.
Rather, they assumed a POSSIBILITY dependent on a certain condition:
That without Morocco -- that if they failed to hold Morocco -- something bad WOULD happen:
Their grip on Algeria WOULD never be secure.
It is for this reason that we must use would.

A quick refresher on conditionals:

Present conditional:
John knows that if he MISSES the train, he WILL be late.

Past conditional:
John knew that if he MISSED the train, he WOULD be late.

dear expert,pls help

normally, grammar book teach us 4 kinds
- a fact: if some one pass gmat, he can go to usa for mba
- a condition which is real and at present: If I go home, I will have a dinner
- a condition which is likely to be unreal and at present: If I went home, I would have a dinner
- a condition which is likely to be unreal and in the past: if I had gone home yesterday, I would have had a dinner.

the question which we are discussing belong to which pattern , 1,2,3, or 4?// pls explain

Like this post

GMATGuruNY: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 15539; Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pmFollowed by: 1906 members; Location: New York, NY; Thanked: 13060 times; GMAT Score:790

by GMATGuruNY » Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:22 am

vietmoi999 wrote:normally, grammar book teach us 4 kinds
- a fact: if some one pass gmat, he can go to usa for mba
- a condition which is real and at present: If I go home, I will have a dinner
- a condition which is likely to be unreal and at present: If I went home, I would have a dinner
- a condition which is likely to be unreal and in the past: if I had gone home yesterday, I would have had a dinner.

the question which we are discussing belong to which pattern , 1,2,3, or 4?// pls explain

The conditional nature of the sentence is not the issue here.
Rather, the SC above must use would in order to convey the correct sequence of events.
Please see my amended post above, in which I've clarified the reasoning.

Like this post

zoe: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 121; Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 6:31 pm; Thanked: 1 times

by zoe » Mon Jun 27, 2016 3:59 am

Dear friends,

would you please clarify why 'it' in B is clearly stand for Morocco, i am afraid i need your further explanation.
I have no idea about the difference of "it" between B and A,C,E, it will be great appreciate if you answer.

waiting for your reply

have a nice day

>_~

Like this post

Krabhay: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 31; Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:42 pm

by Krabhay » Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:47 pm

a. if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure
wrong usage of conditional sentence -"was" is wrongly used; change of meaning via "insecure"
b. without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure. Grammatically and Logically correct.
c. their grip on Algeria was not ever secure if they did not hold it. Wrong usage of conditional sentence; "was not ever" doesn't mean anything.
d. without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria. Grip on Algeria needs to be secure and also "assumed that without that" is ambiguous.
e. never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it. This statement does not go well with un-underlined section.
Hence b is the answer.

Like this post

Post new topic Locked

GMAT Course Reviews

559 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (560 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review