OA : E
Here you go with OE..

(A)
The pronoun he cannot logically refer to the possessive Jan Micker's.
The pronoun they must stand for the entire noun phrase "The spatial relationships among the elements of Jan Micker's 1652 masterwork Bird's Eye View of Amsterdam." It is not possible for subject or object pronouns, such as they or them, to stand for only the noun in such a phrase. (By contrast, relative pronouns, such as that or those, if placed in parallel constructions, may stand for such nouns.) The use of this pronoun thus illogically suggests that the relationships in Micker's painting are also found in most other seventeenth-century Dutch paintings.

(B)
The verb phrase was to become suggests that the bird's-eye vantage point had been slated to become possible, but never did, in fact, become possible.
The preposition among has the wrong object ("most other seventeenth-century Dutch paintings"), suggesting the existence of "spatial relationships" among the paintings themselves rather than among the elements depicted in the paintings.

(C)
The pronoun he cannot logically refer to the possessive Jan Micker's.
The phrase before the possibility of such a vantage point illogically suggests that this "possibility" itself (as opposed to the advent of such a possibility) is an event that took place at a particular time.
Since the parallel structure than in lacks a pronoun, its subject is necessarily still the subject of the first clause, i.e., the entire noun phrase "The spatial relationships among the elements of Jan Micker's 1652 masterwork Bird's Eye View of Amsterdam." This choice thus illogically suggests that the relationships in Micker's painting are also found in most other seventeenth-century Dutch paintings.

(D)
The phrase before the possibility of such a vantage point illogically suggests that this "possibility" itself (as opposed to the advent of such a possibility) is an event that took place at a particular time.
The pronoun they must stand for the entire noun phrase "The spatial relationships among the elements of Jan Micker's 1652 masterwork Bird's Eye View of Amsterdam.". It is not possible for subject or object pronouns, such as they or them, to stand for only the noun in such a phrase. (By contrast, relative pronouns, such as that or those, if placed in parallel constructions, may stand for such nouns.) The use of this pronoun thus illogically suggests that the relationships in Micker's painting are also found in most other seventeenth-century Dutch paintings.

(E) Correct.
The participial modifier painted is succinct and correct. There is no need for a pronoun or for an explicit mention of Micker's name, since he has already been cited as the creator of the painting.
The subordinate clause before such a vantage point became possible is correctly structured, with an appropriate verb in the simple past, to give an accurate description of a past event.
The construction those in ... paintings is most closely parallel to the spatial relationships among ... Amsterdam. In this parallel construction, the relative pronoun those stands for the noun spatial relationships.

The correct answer is E.

I will go with 'D'. Pls post OA.

kvcpk wrote:We need an objective pronoun "those"
pick E

those, like that, this, and these, is neither a subjective pronoun nor an objective pronoun; it's a demonstrative pronoun.

the answer here needs to refer to "spatial relationships" among "elements" in Jan's work to those in the dutch paintings.

ans B and E carry those, but B has the awkward 'was to become possible'; thus, B is out, E is the answer.

E is fine. which in A and C refers back to city while it should refer the paintings. d is awkward in its usage of "the possibility of such a vantage point", those among is b is similarly prolematic.

Idiomatically, "long before X became possible" is the more common usage than "long before the possibility of X", even though the former is passive -- one of many places that idiomatic English diverges from the GMAT ideal. In any case, as has been shown already, that's why D is out.

sumanr84 wrote:The spatial relationships among the elements of Jan Micker's 1652 masterwork Bird's Eye View of Amsterdam, which he painted long before such a vantage point became possible, are much more subtle and intricate than they are in most other seventeenth-century Dutch paintings.

a. which he painted long before such a vantage point became possible, are much more subtle and intricate than they are in
b. painted by the artist long before such a vantage point was to become possible, are much more subtle and intricate than those among
c. which he painted long before the possibility of such a vantage point, are much more subtle and intricate than in
d. painted long before the possibility of such a vantage point, are much more subtle and intricate than they are in
e. painted long before such a vantage point became possible, are much more subtle and intricate than those in

[spoiler]Source : MGMAT , OA : E [/spoiler]

A. only possessive pronoun can refer back to possessive noun, he is subject pronoun, hence it cannot refer back to Jan Micker's.
B. was to become possible = out
C. same as A
D. they can refer to relationships or elements.

E is my pick

i would also go with D because of correct comparison and parallelism i.e "are much more subtle.............than they are in"..................wats the OA?????????

aspirant2011 wrote:i would also go with D because of correct comparison and parallelism i.e "are much more subtle.............than they are in"..................wats the OA?????????

they is a subject pronoun and may refer to either 'spatial relationships' or 'elements', but is more appropriate for people.
also, D has 'before the possibility of such a vantage point', which is absurd. 'before a vantage point was possible' or 'before a vantage point became possible' is idiomatic and more succinct as jim also pointed out.

correct usage is like this example:
the rings in peter's finger are expensive than those in john's.. and NOT the rings in peter's finger are expensive than they are in john's

they referring to the rings is awkward. basically, read the example with the noun as the rings in peter's finger are expensive than the rings in john's and try replacing the rings.
the rings in peter's finger are not the same as the rings in john's finger
when you refer to the rings as they, you're referring to the rings in peter's finger to be the same rings in john's finger; the rings in john's finger should be a new copy, which is what those does

@sumanr84 has cited the source with OA as E in @tetura84's reply above