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

Redeem

Confused about an elimination on pronoun usage

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Philadelphia
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:660

Confused about an elimination on pronoun usage

by chendawg » Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:48 pm
Salt deposits and moisture threaten to destroy the Mohenjo-Daro excavation in Pakistan, the site of an ancient civilization that flourished at the same time as the civilizations in the Nile delta and the river valleys of Tigris and Euphrates.

a. that flourished at the same time as the civilizations
b. that had flourished at the same time as had the civilizations
c. that flourished at the same time those had
d. flourishing at the same time as those did
e. flourishing at the same time as those were

O.A. is A.

I was given an explanation saying that we can eliminate c, d, and e because of the those in the answer choices. The antecedent would be civilization, and since those was plural, we had to use a singular antecedent. My question is, what if there were an answer choice that reads as follows:

f. that flourished at the same time as those did

Would the added "as" give parallelism and imply civilizations and make the answer choice correct? Also, if a singular antecedent was used, wouldn't the sentence not make sense? Then it would read:

g. that flourished at the same time as it did

Wouldn't we need to use those to imply other civilizations, so theoretically the those antecedent really wasn't an antecedent at all?

I'm kind of all confused here, hopefully I made sense.
I'm not bipolar...I'm bi-winning!!
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:21 pm
Thanked: 2 times

by finalshot123 » Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:46 pm
if replacing with singular "it" -> refers to site or civilization?
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:25 am
chendawg wrote:I was given an explanation saying that we can eliminate c, d, and e because of the those in the answer choices. The antecedent would be civilization, and since those was plural, we had to use a singular antecedent. My question is, what if there were an answer choice that reads as follows:

f. that flourished at the same time as those did

Would the added "as" give parallelism and imply civilizations and make the answer choice correct?
no -- the pronoun issue here is a completely black-and-white issue. if you have a singular pronoun, it must stand for a singular antecedent; if you have a plural pronoun, it must stand for a plural antecedent.
this example doesn't do anything to change the fact that you have a plural pronoun ("those") trying to stand for a singular antecedent ("civilization").
Also, if a singular antecedent was used, wouldn't the sentence not make sense? Then it would read:

g. that flourished at the same time as it did
yes -- and this is the reason why you need a slightly awkward construction, in which both "civilization" and "civilizations" appear. that near-duplication is not very appetizing, but it's the only option that you really have in this case.
Wouldn't we need to use those to imply other civilizations, so theoretically the those antecedent really wasn't an antecedent at all?


you're seriously overthinking this issue -- if there's a pronoun, than it has to have an antecedent. period, full stop. end of story.
this one of the few features of english grammar that is absolutely straightforward ... so keep it that way!
the ONLY exception is this:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/pronoun-ambi ... tml#312862
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
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 12:28 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by amir_hatef » Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:32 am
Ron: I got confused about the basics on this sentence! What are parts pf speech used in this sentence, verb and subjects for two parts of the sentence?? Also, is it right to say ''People came here at the same time as police DID''?? If yes, choice A is wrong because it does not have verb(did), am i right??
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Philadelphia
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:660

by chendawg » Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:03 am
Much appreciation for your help and expertise Ron! Your explanation definitely cleared up some muddled thinking.
I'm not bipolar...I'm bi-winning!!
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:29 am
Thanked: 1 times

by mohish » Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:44 pm
amir_hatef wrote:Ron: I got confused about the basics on this sentence! What are parts pf speech used in this sentence, verb and subjects for two parts of the sentence?? Also, is it right to say ''People came here at the same time as police DID''?? If yes, choice A is wrong because it does not have verb(did), am i right??
Hi Ron, can you please answer the question posed by Amir. I am also confused :(. I also think 'did' should have been there.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:16 am
Thanked: 77 times
Followed by:49 members

by atulmangal » Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:32 am
chendawg wrote:Salt deposits and moisture threaten to destroy the Mohenjo-Daro excavation in Pakistan, the site of an ancient civilization that flourished at the same time as the civilizations in the Nile delta and the river valleys of Tigris and Euphrates.

a. that flourished at the same time as the civilizations
b. that had flourished at the same time as had the civilizations
c. that flourished at the same time those had
d. flourishing at the same time as those did
e. flourishing at the same time as those were

O.A. is A.
@ Ron and Chendawg

I think this sentence has a Run-On error...as it contains two independent clauses joined with comma...in a wrong way
1st IC--->Salt deposits and moisture threaten to destroy the Mohenjo-Daro excavation in Pakistan

2nd IC--->the site of an ancient civilization that flourished at the same time as the civilizations in the Nile delta and the river valleys of Tigris and Euphrates.

Although i'm bit confused that the 2nd statement is an IC or not...?? "flourished" here is acting as verb here for the clause or not????
Please correct me if m wrong..
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Philadelphia
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:660

by chendawg » Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:20 am
atulmangal wrote: I think this sentence has a Run-On error...as it contains two independent clauses joined with comma...in a wrong way
1st IC--->Salt deposits and moisture threaten to destroy the Mohenjo-Daro excavation in Pakistan

2nd IC--->the site of an ancient civilization that flourished at the same time as the civilizations in the Nile delta and the river valleys of Tigris and Euphrates.

Although i'm bit confused that the 2nd statement is an IC or not...?? "flourished" here is acting as verb here for the clause or not????
Please correct me if m wrong..
I forgot to mention that the source is OG12.

Regarding your question, the second part isn't an independent clause. If it were then we'd need a semicolon.
I'm not bipolar...I'm bi-winning!!
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:16 am
Thanked: 77 times
Followed by:49 members

by atulmangal » Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:30 am
chendawg wrote:
atulmangal wrote: I think this sentence has a Run-On error...as it contains two independent clauses joined with comma...in a wrong way
1st IC--->Salt deposits and moisture threaten to destroy the Mohenjo-Daro excavation in Pakistan

2nd IC--->the site of an ancient civilization that flourished at the same time as the civilizations in the Nile delta and the river valleys of Tigris and Euphrates.

Although i'm bit confused that the 2nd statement is an IC or not...?? "flourished" here is acting as verb here for the clause or not????
Please correct me if m wrong..
I forgot to mention that the source is OG12.

Regarding your question, the second part isn't an independent clause. If it were then we'd need a semicolon.
well if its an OG question then definitely m wrong...thats why i asked in the 2nd phrase is the word Flourished is verb...the second clause looks to me like and IC thats y raised a question about the validity of the question
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Philadelphia
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:660

by chendawg » Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:41 am
atulmangal wrote: well if its an OG question then definitely m wrong...thats why i asked in the 2nd phrase is the word Flourished is verb...the second clause looks to me like and IC thats y raised a question about the validity of the question
Ahh don't worry, OG CAN make "mistakes"(read: don't follow their own explanations in answers) on the non-underlined parts, however I've never seen them make a "big" error such as a run-on sentence. I didn't bring up the OG12 reference to refute your question or anything, I put it in there just so people know where it's from :)

Edit: Guess I need to keep brushing up:)
Last edited by chendawg on Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not bipolar...I'm bi-winning!!
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:16 am
Thanked: 77 times
Followed by:49 members

by atulmangal » Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:57 am
chendawg wrote:
atulmangal wrote: well if its an OG question then definitely m wrong...thats why i asked in the 2nd phrase is the word Flourished is verb...the second clause looks to me like and IC thats y raised a question about the validity of the question
Ahh don't worry, OG CAN make "mistakes"(read: don't follow their own explanations in answers) on the non-underlined parts, however I've never seen them make a "big" error such as a run-on sentence. I didn't bring up the OG12 reference to refute your question or anything, I put it in there just so people know where it's from :)

But for further clarification, "flourished" is a past participle here and not a verb. It took me awhile to differentiate participles and verbs, it definitely helps a ton in SC.
Yes i got your point...flourished is an adjective for noun site...the site that flourished...

Thanks
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 434
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:42 pm
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 91 times
Followed by:46 members

by EducationAisle » Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:51 am
chendawg wrote: Regarding your question, the second part isn't an independent clause. If it were then we'd need a semicolon.

Nops; flourished is a proper verb here. However, the second part (the site of....) is not an Independent clause; just a appositive modifier comprising a phrase the site of an ancient civilization + a dependent clause that flourished at the same time as the civilizations in the Nile delta and the river valleys of Tigris and Euphrates

Edit: Just thought simpler similar example might help understanding:

He is Sachin, the player who has scored maximum centuries for the country.

the player who has scored maximum centuries for the country is an appositive modifying Sachin and this sentence (as is perhaps easier to see) is not a run-on sentence.
Ashish
MBA - ISB, GMAT - 99th Percentile
GMAT Faculty @ EducationAisle
www.EducationAisle.com

Sentence Correction Nirvana available at:

a) Amazon: Sentence Correction Nirvana

b) Flipkart: Sentence Correction Nirvana

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 11:16 am
Thanked: 77 times
Followed by:49 members

by atulmangal » Thu Mar 31, 2011 9:09 am
EducationAisle wrote:
chendawg wrote: Regarding your question, the second part isn't an independent clause. If it were then we'd need a semicolon.

Nops; flourished is a proper verb here. However, the second part (the site of....) is not an Independent clause; just a appositive modifier comprising a phrase the site of an ancient civilization + a dependent clause that flourished at the same time as the civilizations in the Nile delta and the river valleys of Tigris and Euphrates

Edit: Just thought simpler similar example might help understanding:

He is Sachin, the player who has scored maximum centuries for the country.

the player who has scored maximum centuries for the country is an appositive modifying Sachin and this sentence (as is perhaps easier to see) is not a run-on sentence.
Thanks Ashish for stepping in...and thanks a lot for the useful information..
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:19 am
amir_hatef wrote:Ron: I got confused about the basics on this sentence! What are parts pf speech used in this sentence, verb and subjects for two parts of the sentence??
not sure what you're asking me here ("what are parts of speech used in the sentence?")
taken literally, that question seems to be asking the part of speech of every word in the sentence; that's a rather unreasonable request (there are 39 words in the sentence), so i'm sure that's not what you meant.
which parts of speech were you asking about?
Also, is it right to say ''People came here at the same time as police DID''??
yes.
but it's also correct just to say "people came here at the same time as police".
If yes, choice A is wrong because it does not have verb(did), am i right??
whoa, no.

first --
OFFICIALLY CORRECT ANSWERS ARE CORRECT!
do not question officially correct answers!
far too many students on this forum make the mistake of questioning the correct answers; please note that doing so is a complete waste of your time and effort. i.e., exactly 0% of the time that you spend posting "isn't this official answer wrong?" is productive, and exactly 100% of that time is wasted.

"is this correct?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always yes.
"is this wrong?" / "is this X type of error?" is NEVER a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers -- the answer is always no.

instead, the questions you should be asking about correct official answers, if you don't understand them, are:
"why is this correct?"
"how does this work?"
"what understanding am i lacking that i need to understand this choice?"

this is a small, but hugely significant, change to your way of thinking -- you will suddenly find it much easier to understand the format, style, and conventions of the official problems if you dispose of the idea that they might be wrong.

--

now that we've gotten that out of the way -- it also appears that there is a serious flaw in the way that you think about correct and incorrect sentences in general.
namely, you seem to be assuming that if version #1 of some sentence is correct, then version #2 MUST be incorrect. this is a grave mistake; there are all kinds of constructions (in every language, not just english) that can be correctly written in several different ways.
just because one version of a construction is correct, DO NOT assume that alternate versions of that construction are incorrect!

i'll explain this difference in a little more detail in a post below.
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
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:29 am
mohish wrote:
amir_hatef wrote:Ron: I got confused about the basics on this sentence! What are parts pf speech used in this sentence, verb and subjects for two parts of the sentence?? Also, is it right to say ''People came here at the same time as police DID''?? If yes, choice A is wrong because it does not have verb(did), am i right??
Hi Ron, can you please answer the question posed by Amir. I am also confused :(. I also think 'did' should have been there.
first -- patience, please.
it's very rude/unprofessional, at least in the u.s., to post something like "can you please answer this question" only six hours after the question has originally been posted. keep this in mind for any future american professional correspondence.

--

you are making the same error in reasoning that i pointed out to amir_hatef above; namely, you are operating on the assumption that there is exactly one correct way to write any construction, and therefore that, if version #1 is correct, then version #2 must be incorrect.
this is not the case; the sentence above would be correct with OR without "did".

here's the story:

in comparisons, a helping verb is NEEDED in the following two situations:
1) there is a CHANGE IN TENSE
2) the sentence is AMBIGUOUS WITHOUT the helping verb

if neither of these conditions holds, then it is perfectly acceptable to write the comparison without the helping verb.

examples:

#0 -- amir's example from above
people came at the same time as the police --> correct. this sentence is not ambiguous, and there is no change in tense because the two actions were simultaneous.
people came at the same time as the police did --> also correct, although the helping verb is unnecessary in this case.

#1 -- let's say that my dad ran really fast when he was in high school (in the 1960s), and i can run just as fast now.
i run just as fast as my dad --> INCORRECT; here, the implication is that i can run as fast as my dad can run now. that's not the intended meaning.
i run just as fast as my dad did (in the 1960s) --> correct; this sentence includes the necessary tense change.

#2 --
tom has known james as long as stephanie --> INCORRECT; this sentence is ambiguous (we don't know whether it means "tom has known james as long as he has known stephanie" or "tom has known james as long as stephanie has known james").
tom has known james as long as stephanie has --> correct; here, the addition of the helping verb resolves the ambiguity.

the sentence in the current problem is like the one in #0 -- it contains neither a tense change nor any sort of ambiguity -- and so it does not need a helping verb.
Last edited by lunarpower on Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Top
Post new topic Locked