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

Redeem

Pronoun

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:41 pm

Pronoun

by rumy » Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:11 am
927. While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they are potentially devastating for home-owners, whose equity - in many cases representing a life's savings- can plunge or even disappear.

A) they are potentially devastating for home-owners, whose
B) they can potentially devastate homeowners in that their
C) for homeowners they are potentially devastating because their
D) for homeowners, it is potentially devastating in that their
E) it can potentially devastate homeowners, whose

In A) what does "they" refer to?
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1172
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:20 pm
Thanked: 74 times
Followed by:4 members

by uwhusky » Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:24 am
There are two nouns prior to the usage of "they": "depressed property values" and "large investors".

They is clearing referring to the subject "depressed property values", because they is too close to the object noun "investors". If you want they to refer to "investors", you would use who to introduce the subclause that provides more information about the object noun.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 9:32 pm
Location: Bangalore,India
Thanked: 67 times
Followed by:2 members

by sumanr84 » Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:42 am
uwhusky wrote:There are two nouns prior to the usage of "they": "depressed property values" and "large investors".

They is clearing referring to the subject "depressed property values", because they is too close to the object noun "investors". If you want they to refer to "investors", you would use who to introduce the subclause that provides more information about the object noun.
I don't think while resolving pronoun ambiguity we need to consider closeness of noun. As far as I know, as long as there is a pronoun which can stand for two or more nouns mentioned earlier in the sentence - you have an ambiguity.

Also, we all know that pronoun ambiguity is not an absolute determiner for eliminating a choice unless we don't have clear options with some other errors.

D and E can be easily eliminated because of singular pronoun "IT"
Now, rest all choices A,B and C contain "THEY". Once you see that you can be assured that pronoun is not the thing the correction is looking for. There has to be something else.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:07 pm
Thanked: 14 times

by Haaress » Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:57 am
Obviously D and E are out because of the incorrect pronoun - it. C is not parallel and is ambiguos. B is incorrect because it is redundant to say "can potentially". Even though the pronoun "they" seems to refer to either of the 2 antecedant in the first part of the stmt, but it is parallel to "property values", which makes it clear. Moreover, if all else is ok with the stmt, this rule is not absolute. Hope that helps.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1172
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:20 pm
Thanked: 74 times
Followed by:4 members

by uwhusky » Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:59 am
You can also determine that "they" is not ambiguous using the construction of the sentence, "they" is parallel to the subject of the previous clause, and thus they is referring to property values.

Without that comma, they would indeed be too close to the second noun, and with the comma, construction usage as stated above would determine its antecedent.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 4:07 pm
Thanked: 14 times

by Haaress » Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:02 am
@Sumanr84, the rule on the proximity to the pronoun antecedant exists , however , not an absolute one. Refer to page 233 of the MGMAT SC.

@ unwhusky, "too close" implies that the noun is next to the pronoun, but in this case there is a comma between the noun ( ambigous non) and the pronoun.

Thanks
Last edited by Haaress on Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1172
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:20 pm
Thanked: 74 times
Followed by:4 members

by uwhusky » Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:03 am
I edited my previous comment.

Looking at the construction again, "they" is too close to the antecedent in question no matter if the comma is there or not. It simply has no chance to be referring to the second noun.
Last edited by uwhusky on Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:12 am
Thanked: 3 times

by neerajbansal » Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:07 am
927. While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they are potentially devastating for home-owners, whose equity - in many cases representing a life's savings- can plunge or even disappear.

A) they are potentially devastating for home-owners, whose --> Does not look as the best answer to me, but in this question, this answer choice is the Cream of the Crap.. --> Correct answer..I hope :)
B) they can potentially devastate homeowners in that their --> that and their shows me more ambiguity than choice A.
C) for homeowners they are potentially devastating because their --> sentence construction.. it is bad for him OR for him it is bad....
D) for homeowners, it is potentially devastating in that their --> verb disagreement
E) it can potentially devastate homeowners, whose --> verb disagreement
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:51 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by brijesh » Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:32 am
rumy wrote:927. While depressed property values can hurt some large investors, they are potentially devastating for home-owners, whose equity - in many cases representing a life's savings- can plunge or even disappear.

A) they are potentially devastating for home-owners, whose (seems correct choice)
B) they can potentially devastate homeowners in that their
C) for homeowners they are potentially devastating because their (Here they create ambiguity)
D) for homeowners, it is potentially devastating in that their
E) it can potentially devastate homeowners, whose

Can any one explain how the choice A is not parallel with the sentence " While depressed property values can hurt some large investors"
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:41 pm

by rumy » Sun Jul 18, 2010 8:38 am
OA - A
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1