prachich1987 wrote:Constructed with the finest Italian marble, the floor of the church is its greatest attraction and is more attractive to tourists than are its ornate stained-glass windows.

A. attraction and is more attractive to tourists than are its ornate stained-glass windows.
B. attraction, itself more attractive to tourists than are its ornate stained-glass windows.
C. attraction, itself more attractive to tourists as are its ornate stained-glass windows.
D. attraction, being more attractive to tourists than its ornate stained-glass windows.
E. attraction as it more is attractive to tourists than are the church's stained-glass windows.

Source: Kaplan 800

P.S : I know the question had been discussed earlier on the forum.But there is no proper explanation available.

IMO E

its is referring to floor of the church which doesn't makes sense. So it should be replaced with "church's".

Constructed with the finest Italian marble, the floor of the church is its greatest attraction and is more attractive to tourists than are its ornate stained-glass windows.
A. attraction and is more attractive to tourists than are its ornate stained-glass windows.
Consider this"The floor of the Church is more attractive than are its stained glass windows.Seems to be saying that the windows belong to the floor.
B. attraction, itself more attractive to tourists than are its ornate stained-glass windows. Pronoun Has Ambig. antecedent

C. attraction, itself more attractive to tourists as are its ornate stained-glass windows.Wrong .U need than for Comparison
D. attraction, being more attractive to tourists than its ornate stained-glass windows. Eliminated Because of "Being"
E. attraction as it more is attractive to tourists than are the church's stained-glass windows.


E has awkward Diction but E seems Coorect

unfortunately that's not the OA guys
give another try

prachich1987 wrote:unfortunately that's not the OA guys
give another try

I think U should PM an Expert .

I don't like the use of "its" in any of these; it looks as though the windows are in the floor. However E, the only one that uses a noun to specify what thing possesses the windows, is wrong because of the construction "it more is attractive". That would need to be "It is more attractive".

C is definitely out because of "more...as"
D is suspect because of "being", which, while not always wrong, is generally rejected on this test.

Looking at B and A, I'm uncomfortable with "itself" and would choose A

Tani Wolff - Kaplan wrote:I don't like the use of "its" in any of these; it looks as though the windows are in the floor. However E, the only one that uses a noun to specify what thing possesses the windows, is wrong because of the construction "it more is attractive". That would need to be "It is more attractive".

C is definitely out because of "more...as"
D is suspect because of "being", which, while not always wrong, is generally rejected on this test.

Looking at B and A, I'm uncomfortable with "itself" and would choose A

Ohh I overlook this wrong construction "it more is attractive".
But the OA given in the book is B

what if E uses correct wordings "it is more attractive".. which one o choose in that case?

Tani , B is the OA and A is incorrect according to Kaplan 800.

If the rest of E were correct I would definitely go with the version that tells us that the windows belong to the church, not to the floor.

I agree with Tani that "itself" doesn't seem right. Reflexive pronouns are only necessary when the subject takes itself as an object (such as in this very sentence!) or in a modifying phrase, such as: "The priest, all by himself in the empty church, was contented with the rare silence." Neither of these situations applies here, and if we use (A), it's clear that "floor" is the subject of the verb "is" and is properly comparied with "windows," the subject of the verb "are."

(A) is correct, regardless of what the Kaplan book says.

AdamKnewton wrote:I agree with Tani that "itself" doesn't seem right. Reflexive pronouns are only necessary when the subject takes itself as an object (such as in this very sentence!) or in a modifying phrase, such as: "The priest, all by himself in the empty church, was contented with the rare silence." Neither of these situations applies here, and if we use (A), it's clear that "floor" is the subject of the verb "is" and is properly comparied with "windows," the subject of the verb "are."

(A) is correct, regardless of what the Kaplan book says.

Thanks Adam for your reply !
Can you please shed some light on the usage of ITS here.
I know logically it cannot refer to floor.
But many a times I have come across options where IT,ITS cannot logically refer to certain things
Still we reject those choices.
How to decide whether the usage of IT,ITS is ambiguous or not?

prachich1987 wrote: Can you please shed some light on the usage of ITS here.
I know logically it cannot refer to floor.
But many a times I have come across options where IT,ITS cannot logically refer to certain things
Still we reject those choices.
How to decide whether the usage of IT,ITS is ambiguous or not?

This is one of the most confusing rules in the English language, and on the GMAT.

Pronouns are ambiguous when there is more than one logical antecedent that matches it in number in the passage. A "logical antecedent" is something that could logically be in same position as the pronoun in the sentence. For example:

After repainting the floors, we found the color too close to that of the walls, so we knew we had to repaint them again."

Here, I believe that "them" (same rules as it/its/they/their/theirs) would be ambiguous, because theoretically we could "repaint" walls OR floors. The word "again" makes it obvious which one we mean -- but that doesn't make it logically obvious that only the floors can be repainted.

In the sentence from the example in this thread, by contrast, floors don't have windows, so there's no way that "floor" could be the antecedent of "it." This isn't from big context clues; rather, right in the local vicinity of "it" is a word that makes it logically impossible for anything other than "the church" to be the antecedent.

As I said, this is a very confusing rule. When the GMAT says something must be "logical," they don't mean that you can figure it out from context; they mean that there are no other possibilities that make sense at all.

AdamKnewton wrote:

prachich1987 wrote: Can you please shed some light on the usage of ITS here.
I know logically it cannot refer to floor.
But many a times I have come across options where IT,ITS cannot logically refer to certain things
Still we reject those choices.
How to decide whether the usage of IT,ITS is ambiguous or not?

This is one of the most confusing rules in the English language, and on the GMAT.

Pronouns are ambiguous when there is more than one logical antecedent that matches it in number in the passage. A "logical antecedent" is something that could logically be in same position as the pronoun in the sentence. For example:

After repainting the floors, we found the color too close to that of the walls, so we knew we had to repaint them again."

Here, I believe that "them" (same rules as it/its/they/their/theirs) would be ambiguous, because theoretically we could "repaint" walls OR floors. The word "again" makes it obvious which one we mean -- but that doesn't make it logically obvious that only the floors can be repainted.

In the sentence from the example in this thread, by contrast, floors don't have windows, so there's no way that "floor" could be the antecedent of "it." This isn't from big context clues; rather, right in the local vicinity of "it" is a word that makes it logically impossible for anything other than "the church" to be the antecedent.

As I said, this is a very confusing rule. When the GMAT says something must be "logical," they don't mean that you can figure it out from context; they mean that there are no other possibilities that make sense at all.

Thanks Adam
Just one last doubt

Despite an expensive publicity campaign, ticket sales for the new play were so poor that it was closed after only two weeks

I think in above sentence IT is used correctly
It cannot logically refer to campaign,can it?

AdamKnewton wrote:

prachich1987 wrote: Can you please shed some light on the usage of ITS here.
I know logically it cannot refer to floor.
But many a times I have come across options where IT,ITS cannot logically refer to certain things
Still we reject those choices.
How to decide whether the usage of IT,ITS is ambiguous or not?

This is one of the most confusing rules in the English language, and on the GMAT.

Pronouns are ambiguous when there is more than one logical antecedent that matches it in number in the passage. A "logical antecedent" is something that could logically be in same position as the pronoun in the sentence. For example:

After repainting the floors, we found the color too close to that of the walls, so we knew we had to repaint them again."

Here, I believe that "them" (same rules as it/its/they/their/theirs) would be ambiguous, because theoretically we could "repaint" walls OR floors. The word "again" makes it obvious which one we mean -- but that doesn't make it logically obvious that only the floors can be repainted.

In the sentence from the example in this thread, by contrast, floors don't have windows, so there's no way that "floor" could be the antecedent of "it." This isn't from big context clues; rather, right in the local vicinity of "it" is a word that makes it logically impossible for anything other than "the church" to be the antecedent.

As I said, this is a very confusing rule. When the GMAT says something must be "logical," they don't mean that you can figure it out from context; they mean that there are no other possibilities that make sense at all.

Thanks Adam
Just one last doubt

Despite an expensive publicity campaign, ticket sales for the new play were so poor that it was closed after only two weeks

I think in above sentence IT is used correctly
It cannot logically refer to campaign,can it?

AdamKnewton wrote: Pronouns are ambiguous when there is more than one logical antecedent that matches it in number in the passage. A "logical antecedent" is something that could logically be in same position as the pronoun in the sentence. For example:

After repainting the floors, we found the color too close to that of the walls, so we knew we had to repaint them again."

Here, I believe that "them" (same rules as it/its/they/their/theirs) would be ambiguous, because theoretically we could "repaint" walls OR floors. The word "again" makes it obvious which one we mean -- but that doesn't make it logically obvious that only the floors can be repainted.

In the sentence from the example in this thread, by contrast, floors don't have windows, so there's no way that "floor" could be the antecedent of "it." This isn't from big context clues; rather, right in the local vicinity of "it" is a word that makes it logically impossible for anything other than "the church" to be the antecedent.

So Adam , so when there is 1 Logical antcedent for a particular pronoun one can use common sense to determine which noun is the antecedent for the pronoun.