Before there were tablets, there were computers. This makes sense.
Before there were tablets, it were computers. This does not make sense.


Before Australia was Australia,it was the antipodes. Replacing it with Australia tells us clearly that it refers to whatever is now Australia.

According to me, this is the same logic that has been applied to the given question.

vineeshp wrote:Before there were tablets, there were computers. This makes sense.
Before there were tablets, it were computers. This does not make sense.


Before Australia was Australia,it was the antipodes. Replacing it with Australia tells us clearly that it refers to whatever is now Australia.

According to me, this is the same logic that has been applied to the given question.

I dont find your examples relevant to the SC under consideration .
As regards whether it refers to a logical antecedent , even B and C have the it pronoun .

It's not a grammar issue with the pronoun; it's a logic issue. "It" cannot refer to something that didn't exist in that time frame. For example:

"Before I was born, I was already a GMAT expert."

Grammatically? This is fine. However ... wtf? I cannot be the subject of a sentence that is taking place before I am born! Unless I am sorcerer!

Try this one:

"Before the car was invented, it was a very popular way to pick up ladies."

Again, this is grammatically fine. "It" refers to "car." But it can't refer to be car because the "it" clause is taking place when there were no cars! So while it has a grammatical antecdent, it does not have a logical antecedent, which is one of the requirements (in fact the most commonly tested requirement!) of pronouns on the GMAT.

Thus, in (B), "it" cannot refer to the "Australia" that didn't exist yet. In (A), we're given a noun "Australia" that is already said to exist (as a body of land and not, presumably, as a political entity), so with this weird clever double-meaning paradoxical twist of syntax, the pronoun is okay. One more example:

"Before there was a post on this topic, it was confusing." No good!

"Before this post was posted by mundasingh123, it was just an unanswered question in his mind." Acceptable!

Hi StickLor ,
"Before there was a post on this topic, it was confusing." No good!
I agree with this
"Before this post was posted by mundasingh123, it was just an unanswered question in his mind." Acceptable!But the post was created only when i typed into the dialogue box and pressed enter .How could we say that " it was just an unanswered question in his mind "

I am only getting confused . However the explanation that you gave was great . but i am still have problems trying to apply the explanation to distinguish between option A and B . i could eliminate B after applying your explanation but then , i am inclined to eliminate A as well
Is it because A differs in phrasing from B . B begins with "There "

(A) before Australia was Australia, it was the antipodes
(B) before there was Australia, it was the antipodes

How to eliminate D and E ?
(D) Australia was what was the antipodes
(E) Australia was what had been known as the antipodes