BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Pronouns and Antecedents

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:29 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

Pronouns and Antecedents

by Leonard C » Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:42 am
Guys,

This is not a test question but more of an example for discussion to firm up our knowledge of pronouns and antecedents.

Consider the following:

The attorney argued that students who were denied the use of school facilities for political activities had lost their right of free assembly.

Manhattan SC says that the word "their" has no clear antecedent - it can refer to students, facilities or political activities. I find it hard to see how "their" can refer to anything but students except under the very strict restriction that that pronouns must be as close as humanly possible to the noun that they take the place of, and that no other noun should inserted in between the pronoun and its antecedent. However, if this is the way it should be, then I am happy to accept this.

Now consider the following (OG verbal question 102):

Although Napolean's army entered Russia with far more supplies than for any previous campaign, it had provisions for only twenty-four days.

If we operate under the same strict rules as above, can we not say that "it" in the above has no clear antecedent, as it can mean Napolean's army or Russia?

Let me know what you guys think.

BTW, I am not sure if you guys feel the same way, but I notice that the OG is not particularly strict on pronoun antecedents (as per above example) compared to Kaplan, SC1000, etc.

Please share your thoughts.
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
Legendary Member
Posts: 645
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:37 am
Location: India
Thanked: 34 times
Followed by:5 members

by camitava » Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:53 pm
Leonard, I am agree with u, man! I have also faced the same problem. I think we need opinion from others also to get to know the way of tackling this kind of situation.
Correct me If I am wrong


Regards,

Amitava
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1018
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:19 pm
Thanked: 86 times
Followed by:6 members

by mayonnai5e » Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:42 am
The main difference between the two is the context of the sentences. The second sentence makes a comparison:

Although Napolean's army entered Russia with far more supplies than for any previous campaign, it had provisions for only twenty-four days.

Thus in order for the sentence to make sense in the context of a comparison, the "it" must refer to the army - it cannot refer to Russia because the comparison would no longer make sense. Thus the "it" in is understood to be the army and the antecedent does not need to be explicitly stated.

In the first sentence, there is no comparison being made nor any other type of linguistic mechanism that allows a reader to properly infer the antecedent for it.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:29 am
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

by Leonard C » Sat Sep 15, 2007 6:33 pm
Guys,

After speaking to a couple of guys and doing some research, I think I have got to the bottom of this issue. However, welcome any further thoughts from the group.

Rule 1: If the context of the sentence makes it clear who or what the pronoun refers to, then that sentence is fine.

Example:

Although Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than for any previous campaign, it had provisions for only twenty-four days.

Here, "it" clearly refers to "army" if we look at it in the context of the sentence. Hence this sentence is fine.

Although Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than for any previous campaign, it was a country that simply could not be conquered.

Here, the same "it" in the previous sentence is used to refer to "Russia". How do we know this? Because of the context of the sentence.

The important point to note here that "it" can refer to both "army" and "Russia" depending on the context of the sentence. Some GMAT books will tell you that there is a pronoun antecedent error here because there are several nouns preceding a pronoun, and as a result the pronoun can be used to refer to any one of these preceding nouns. However this is a very simplistic rule and should not be applied (more on this later). In fact, if we follow this strict rule, then there are pronoun antecedent errors everywhere you look - I found three or four in the newspapers in this morning in the space of 10 minutes. So, in short - ignore the rule that there is a pronoun antecedent error if there are several nouns preceding a pronoun - this is wrong and will not give you success on the GMAT.

Rule 2: If the context of the sentence is unclear, then there is a pronoun antecedent error.

Example:

Formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity do not apply to new small businesses in the same way as they do to established big businesses, because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium.

Here, the context of the sentence is not as clear. We all know "they" refers to "small businesses" but an uninformed reader may assume it refers to the "formulas". Why? Because if I write "formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity are growing and are seldom in equilibrium" the clause makes sense. Hence, the antecedent here is not as clear as it can be, and this sentence is wrong.

One more example:

The attorney argued that students who were denied the use of school facilities for political activities had lost their right of free assembly.

Is there an unclear antecedent for "their" here? Manhattan Review says there is, but that is incorrect. There is no unclear antecedent here. "Their" can only refer to "students" - it cannot refer to "school facilities" or "political activities". Why? Ask yourself - can school facilities lose their right to free assembly? No. Can political activities lose their right to free assembly? No. So "students" is the only clear antecedent of "their", and there is no unclear antecedent error here.

In summary: when you see an pronoun which is preceded by a several nouns, substitute the pronoun for each of the preceding nouns. If the sentence only makes sense when one of the nouns is substituted (as in the example above, only "students" make sense) then there is no clear antecedent. If you can substitute multiple nouns for the pronoun and the sentence makes sense in all cases, then there is an antecedent error.

Last few words: I spoke with a colleague of mine who attained a perfect score on the GMAT two years ago and she agreed with my view. Furthermore, she said that if you check the OG and all the questions relating to pronoun errors, you will see that they allow for the meaning of pronouns to be derived from the context of the sentence. In short, ignore the strict pronoun antecedent rules put forward by some prep books. A lot of these books support the use of simplistic rules which may not apply in all cases. They seem to have little respect for the GMAT and believe that if you rote learn a set of simplistic rules, you can score well. I think that we need to have a little more respect for the GMAT than this. For sure, there are a set of grammar rules we must rote learn and follow, but there are instances (such as this) where we have to use our judgment.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:36 am
Thanked: 7 times

by erjamit » Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:38 am
Thank you very much Leonard.

I was also facing the same issue. Your advice makes sense.

Amit
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:36 am
Thanked: 7 times

by erjamit » Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:20 pm
Formulas......do not apply ..... as they do......, because they....
--------------C1--------------------..............-----C2------

We have two clauses here lets call them C1 and C2 as shown above.

Formulas is the subject of C1 and they is the subject of C2...so can we infer that whenever we have a similar situation the pronoun of one clause refers to the noun of the other clause.
i.e. They of C2 refers to Formulas of C1.

Also, the answer B for this is like....

Because they...............,formulas..............
-----C1------------.......---C2----

Is that a correct understanding.

I agree for the question we have pronoun reference problem but is the genesis of that the same as I have explained above.

Thanks
Amit
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:36 am
Thanked: 7 times

by erjamit » Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:39 am
Congress is debating a bill requiring certain employers provide workers with unpaid leave so as to care for
sick or newbom children.

(A) provide workers with unpaid leave so as to
(B) to provide workers with unpaid leave so as to
(C) provide workers with unpaid leave in order that they
(D) to provide workers with unpaid leave so that they can
(E) provide workers with unpaid leave and

OA is D.

I think D also has a pronoun reference error as per prep books, since they can refer to workers as well as employers. But, as per the context of the sentence they refers to workers.

Thanks
Amit
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 5:44 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by loki.gmat » Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:54 am
erjamit - thanx for bringing up this particular question stem. the information in some posts are really valuable.

i think a lot of us face the same problems. sometimes we think a particular answer is incorrect bcoz it has some or other grammatical error.Later we all r surprised when that particular answer option is the OA.

here r my thoughts on how i handle such situations -
*just remember in GMAT we r suppose to mark the best answer option among the five given choices.
*eliminate the options which r abslutely answer.
*if confused between other choices then mark the best option or the option which is least likely to be incorrect n move ahead.



Thanks!
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:49 pm
Thanked: 3 times

by drgmatIL » Tue Aug 05, 2008 1:05 pm
erjamit wrote:Congress is debating a bill requiring certain employers provide workers with unpaid leave so as to care for
sick or newbom children.

(A) provide workers with unpaid leave so as to
(B) to provide workers with unpaid leave so as to
(C) provide workers with unpaid leave in order that they
(D) to provide workers with unpaid leave so that they can
(E) provide workers with unpaid leave and

OA is D.

I think D also has a pronoun reference error as per prep books, since they can refer to workers as well as employers. But, as per the context of the sentence they refers to workers.

Thanks
Amit
eliminate the wrong answer first:
A - so as
B - so as
C - in order (to)
E - and (paral..)
so we left with D
but now think about the context
who can care for
sick or newbom children? only the workers, try to understand the meaning of the sentence
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

by goelmohit2002 » Sun Aug 02, 2009 10:07 am
Leonard C wrote:Guys,

After speaking to a couple of guys and doing some research, I think I have got to the bottom of this issue. However, welcome any further thoughts from the group.

Rule 1: If the context of the sentence makes it clear who or what the pronoun refers to, then that sentence is fine.

Example:

Although Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than for any previous campaign, it had provisions for only twenty-four days.

Here, "it" clearly refers to "army" if we look at it in the context of the sentence. Hence this sentence is fine.

Although Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than for any previous campaign, it was a country that simply could not be conquered.

Here, the same "it" in the previous sentence is used to refer to "Russia". How do we know this? Because of the context of the sentence.

The important point to note here that "it" can refer to both "army" and "Russia" depending on the context of the sentence. Some GMAT books will tell you that there is a pronoun antecedent error here because there are several nouns preceding a pronoun, and as a result the pronoun can be used to refer to any one of these preceding nouns. However this is a very simplistic rule and should not be applied (more on this later). In fact, if we follow this strict rule, then there are pronoun antecedent errors everywhere you look - I found three or four in the newspapers in this morning in the space of 10 minutes. So, in short - ignore the rule that there is a pronoun antecedent error if there are several nouns preceding a pronoun - this is wrong and will not give you success on the GMAT.

Rule 2: If the context of the sentence is unclear, then there is a pronoun antecedent error.

Example:

Formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity do not apply to new small businesses in the same way as they do to established big businesses, because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium.

Here, the context of the sentence is not as clear. We all know "they" refers to "small businesses" but an uninformed reader may assume it refers to the "formulas". Why? Because if I write "formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity are growing and are seldom in equilibrium" the clause makes sense. Hence, the antecedent here is not as clear as it can be, and this sentence is wrong.

One more example:

The attorney argued that students who were denied the use of school facilities for political activities had lost their right of free assembly.

Is there an unclear antecedent for "their" here? Manhattan Review says there is, but that is incorrect. There is no unclear antecedent here. "Their" can only refer to "students" - it cannot refer to "school facilities" or "political activities". Why? Ask yourself - can school facilities lose their right to free assembly? No. Can political activities lose their right to free assembly? No. So "students" is the only clear antecedent of "their", and there is no unclear antecedent error here.

In summary: when you see an pronoun which is preceded by a several nouns, substitute the pronoun for each of the preceding nouns. If the sentence only makes sense when one of the nouns is substituted (as in the example above, only "students" make sense) then there is no clear antecedent. If you can substitute multiple nouns for the pronoun and the sentence makes sense in all cases, then there is an antecedent error.

Last few words: I spoke with a colleague of mine who attained a perfect score on the GMAT two years ago and she agreed with my view. Furthermore, she said that if you check the OG and all the questions relating to pronoun errors, you will see that they allow for the meaning of pronouns to be derived from the context of the sentence. In short, ignore the strict pronoun antecedent rules put forward by some prep books. A lot of these books support the use of simplistic rules which may not apply in all cases. They seem to have little respect for the GMAT and believe that if you rote learn a set of simplistic rules, you can score well. I think that we need to have a little more respect for the GMAT than this. For sure, there are a set of grammar rules we must rote learn and follow, but there are instances (such as this) where we have to use our judgment.
Hi All,

The above post talks about the pronoun referent based on the context usage.....but Manhattan SC 4th edition does not talk anything like that....

Can someone please tell what indeed is the case....

Does pronoun referent decided on the basis of context ?

Thanks
Mohit
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Thanked: 639 times
Followed by:694 members
GMAT Score:780

by Stacey Koprince » Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:06 am
Received a PM asking me to respond, in particular to address the idea of structure (of a sentence) vs. context.

The person who wrote the above about context is correct to state that just saying there are multiple nouns in a sentence is too simplistic in terms of determining whether a pronoun is used correctly. But context isn't all we need to worry about either.

The biggest issue is structure, followed by logic, agreement in number and (sometimes, but not always) agreement in case (subject, object, possessive).

Let's take the examples given above.

In the Napolean's army sentence, "Napolean's army" is the subject and Russia is an object. In the second half (after the comma), "it" is the subject of the sentence. The structural expectation is that, with two subj-verb clauses, the second subject (when using a pronoun) will refer to the first subject. This is shown correctly in the first example sentence.

The second sentence, however, matches the first subject, "army," with a second subject, "it," that is intended to refer to the object Russia. No good. Yes, we know logically that we're referring to Russia. But it's still no good structurally. Simplify the sentence: Although the army entered Russia, it was a country that couldn't be conquered. The expectation is that "it" refers to the prior subject ("army"). There is a mismatch between structure and logic here, so the sentence isn't acceptable (by GMAT standards).

(Oh, and on the comment that the person found pronoun errors when reading the newspaper that morning... sure. I find errors of all kinds every single day. The newspaper isn't the GMAT. :))

Ditto on the second example given. The first example sentence given is problematic for the same reason discussed above: "formulas" is the subject of the first clause, and "they" is the subject of the second clause, so the structural expectation is that "they" = "formulas." Logically, though, this doesn't make any sense (despite the person's claim above that it does make sense). Formulas are growing? Formulas don't grow. A = pi*r^2 is A = pi*r^2. That doesn't change. The area of a circle could grow if I increase the radius, but the formula itself doesn't "grow."

In fact, if you read the OG explanation for this one, they mention a problem with "formulas" not based upon logic / context but based upon structure. They also DON'T mention any kind of problem / ambiguity in terms of "big businesses." Why not? Could big businesses be " growing" and "seldom in equilibrium"? Sure. So you'd think they'd mention an ambiguity there if mere context were an acceptable way to view this. But they don't because, structurally, "big business" doesn't match anyway.

Finally:

The attorney argued that students who were denied X had lost Y.
Parallelism - structure, once again. Both X and Y should apply to students:
"students who were denied X"
"students had lost Y"
Structurally and logically, "their" refers to "students." No problem.

Basically, we need to look at strucure. If the structural and logical expectations both point to the same word, we're good. If the structural and logical expectations point to different words, however, we've got a problem.
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

by goelmohit2002 » Sun Sep 20, 2009 12:48 pm
Stacey Koprince wrote: The person who wrote the above about context is correct to state that just saying there are multiple nouns in a sentence is too simplistic in terms of determining whether a pronoun is used correctly. But context isn't all we need to worry about either.

The biggest issue is structure, followed by logic, agreement in number and (sometimes, but not always) agreement in case (subject, object, possessive).
Thanks Stacey !!!

Does it mean that we need not worry context stuff while matching pronoun ? Moreover as posted in the above link by the poster.....nothing of that sort is mentioned in Manhattan's strategy guide (4th edition)
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Thanked: 639 times
Followed by:694 members
GMAT Score:780

by Stacey Koprince » Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:23 pm
"context" is subjective. Standardized tests don't like subjectivity and neither do people studying for standardized tests. :)

The two main issues are grammatical structure and logic. I think "context" overlaps heavily with the idea of "logic" - which just means, does it make sense that the pronoun would refer to that noun - is that what we want it to refer to? And, then, does the structure also point to the same noun (if there are multiple possibilities).
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

by goelmohit2002 » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:11 pm
Stacey Koprince wrote:"context" is subjective. Standardized tests don't like subjectivity and neither do people studying for standardized tests. :)

The two main issues are grammatical structure and logic. I think "context" overlaps heavily with the idea of "logic" - which just means, does it make sense that the pronoun would refer to that noun - is that what we want it to refer to? And, then, does the structure also point to the same noun (if there are multiple possibilities).
Thanks Stacey.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:57 pm
Thanked: 15 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:690

by crackgmat007 » Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:38 pm
Stacey Koprince wrote:"context" is subjective. Standardized tests don't like subjectivity and neither do people studying for standardized tests. :)

The two main issues are grammatical structure and logic. I think "context" overlaps heavily with the idea of "logic" - which just means, does it make sense that the pronoun would refer to that noun - is that what we want it to refer to? And, then, does the structure also point to the same noun (if there are multiple possibilities).
Stacey,

Can a pronoun refer to a noun that is not in subject or object position? In other words, should the noun be in subject or object position in order to qualify as an antecedent?

Thanks for your insight.
Top
Post new topic Locked