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

Redeem

OG-10 Question#183 doubt.

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

OG-10 Question#183 doubt.

by goelmohit2002 » Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:24 am
Hi All,

Below is Question # 183 of OG-10.

Although answer "B" looks fine. But I have a small doubt about the antecedent rule of pronoun reference. As per OG any pronoun should unambiguously refer to one and only one prior noun. Can somebody please tell how "it" is referring to "chalice". Why it cannot refer to "Ireland" ? Why we cannot kick out "B" on the basis of pronoun ambiguity issue ?

Archaeologists in Ireland believe that a recently discovered chalice, which dates from the eighth century, was probably buried to keep from being stolen by invaders.

(A) to keep from
(B) to keep it from
(C) to avoid
(D) in order that it would avoid
(E) in order to keep from
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:39 am
Location: Vancouver
Thanked: 9 times
GMAT Score:750

by pakaskwa » Sat Mar 07, 2009 5:43 pm
Why C is incorrect?

I think "it" refers to chalice only, is because the word "buried".
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

by goelmohit2002 » Sat Mar 07, 2009 10:00 pm
Yes, if we go by logic then "it" should refer to Chalice only.

But there are couple of OG explanations for other questions where OG mentions this type of "it" / "they" / "them" to be wrong. The reason OG gives for kicking out this type of answer choice is that

" "it" may refer to chalice or Ireland. And when referring to Ireland then Sentence nonsensically suggests that it was Ireland and not chalice that got buried"

Experts please tell if I am missing something here. How to find out whether we have to kick out on the basis of "it" ambiguity or not ?

Thanks
Mohit
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:19 pm
Thanked: 27 times
Followed by:1 members

by karmayogi » Sun Mar 08, 2009 12:53 am
goelmohit2002 wrote:Yes, if we go by logic then "it" should refer to Chalice only.

But there are couple of OG explanations for other questions where OG mentions this type of "it" / "they" / "them" to be wrong. The reason OG gives for kicking out this type of answer choice is that

" "it" may refer to chalice or Ireland. And when referring to Ireland then Sentence nonsensically suggests that it was Ireland and not chalice that got buried"

Experts please tell if I am missing something here. How to find out whether we have to kick out on the basis of "it" ambiguity or not ?

Thanks
Mohit
'That' introduces a clause. What's the subject of the clause? Chalice. Hence, 'it' is refering to Chalice. In addition, it's logical too.

@Mohit: Above is just my explanation. Could you give any example from OG where a pronoun is ambiguously referring to two nouns, one before 'that' and one after it?
Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is to manifest this divine within.
--By Swami Vivekananda
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:04 am
Thanked: 3 times

by dgr8onerip » Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:37 am
how can u steal Ireland?
U can probably rob it off its wealth, which is not suggested by the other part of the sentence.. hence it here, IMO, refers unambiguously to the chalice and nothing else
target score- anything above 700
preferably above 750
gmat prep 1- 710
powerprep 1- 730
barrons test 1- 760
kaplan test 1- 620 (lol)
kaplan test 2- 680
score 800 1-720
score 800 2- 730
score 800 3-750
score 800 4-720
score 800 5- 710
gmat prep 1 (retake)- 710
gmat prep 2- 730
gmat prep 2 (retake)- 720
actual gmat - 770 :)
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:58 pm
Location: Dubai
Thanked: 73 times
Followed by:2 members

by mals24 » Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:21 am
The following is a good explanation given by Leonard C on pronoun antecedent errors. You can find this in the 'Tip of the Day' section as well.
iamcste wrote:
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.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 84
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:04 am
Thanked: 3 times

by dgr8onerip » Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:38 am
perfect!!
target score- anything above 700
preferably above 750
gmat prep 1- 710
powerprep 1- 730
barrons test 1- 760
kaplan test 1- 620 (lol)
kaplan test 2- 680
score 800 1-720
score 800 2- 730
score 800 3-750
score 800 4-720
score 800 5- 710
gmat prep 1 (retake)- 710
gmat prep 2- 730
gmat prep 2 (retake)- 720
actual gmat - 770 :)
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

by goelmohit2002 » Sun Mar 08, 2009 10:02 am
Awesome post mals.

Just one small doubt in the example below

How can Formulas be growing and in equilibrium ?

Isn't this clause lacking logically...IMO the problem is because "they" can refer to "Big Businesses" and "small businesses" both. Due to this ambiguity the pronoun reference error comes.

Please correct me if I am wrong here.

Thanks
Mohit
mals24 wrote:The following is a good explanation given by Leonard C on pronoun antecedent errors. You can find this in the 'Tip of the Day' section as well.
iamcste wrote:
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.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:58 pm
Location: Dubai
Thanked: 73 times
Followed by:2 members

by mals24 » Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:40 pm
goelmohit2002 wrote:Awesome post mals.

Just one small doubt in the example below

How can Formulas be growing and in equilibrium ?

Isn't this clause lacking logically...IMO the problem is because "they" can refer to "Big Businesses" and "small businesses" both. Due to this ambiguity the pronoun reference error comes.

Please correct me if I am wrong here.

Thanks
Mohit


You're right on this point. I think Loenard C made a typo while writing this point down. Instead of formulas it should be big businesses. However, the core point of the message still remains that there is a logical error.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1799
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:03 am
Thanked: 36 times
Followed by:2 members

by goelmohit2002 » Mon Mar 09, 2009 3:51 am
Thanks Mals.

I just checked what OG explains about this particular Question#12 of OG-10.

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.

(A) 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.
(B) Because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium, 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.
(C) Because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium, new small businesses are not subject to the same applicability of formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity as established big businesses.
(D) Because new small businesses are growing and are seldom in equilibrium, formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity do not apply to them in the same way as to established big businesses.
(E) New small businesses are not subject to the applicability of formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity in the same way as established big businesses, because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium.
===================

OG says:

"In A, the they after because is ambiguous; it seems illogically to refer to Formulas because they and Formulas are each the grammatical subject of a clause and because the previous they refers to Formulas..............."

If we go as per the context usage in the final few words of the Leonard C post, then isn't OG-10 violating the same in this case ? IMO formulas cannot have state of growing or in equilibrium, so final They cannot refer to "formulas" based on the context of the clause.

Please tell if I am missing something here.

Thanks
Mohit
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:58 pm
Location: Dubai
Thanked: 73 times
Followed by:2 members

by mals24 » Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:50 am
Im also thinking along the same lines as you are mohit. The formula bit seems unclear. Why dont you PM Stacey or Ron. Im sure they might be able to help.
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 » Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:12 pm
Received a PM asking me to respond.

I agree with the basic point of the above long post (it's too simple to say that you can only have one noun anywhere in the sentence that could possibly match), but the "logical" rule is only half of the picture.

Generally speaking, the GMAT requires us to ensure that pronouns are both structurally and logically correct. Do you remember reading about the different kinds of pronoun cases - subject, object, and possessive? (If not, go re-read wherever you learned that lesson before continuing with the below.)

I will also say that there is a caveat here - even with what I said above and will say below, the GMAT sometimes is a little... fuzzy... with pronouns.

When you see a subject pronoun, the expected antecedent from a structural perspective is a subject noun. When you see an object pronoun, the expected antecedent from a structural perspective is an object noun. So that's one half of the equation. Then that noun has to make sense logically.

So, on the formula question, you've got "formulas do not apply to X... as they do (apply) to Y." Both "formulas" and "they" are functioning as subjects here. Further, you've got parallelism reinforcing the idea that "formulas" and "they" are performing the same function in the sentence. As such, the structural expectation is that the word "formulas" is the antecedent of the word "they."

But that doesn't make sense. As someone else pointed out above, formulas don't grow. A = pi*r^2 is A = pi*r^2. The area of the circle could grow, if the radius gets larger, but the formula itself is static.

Logically, the proper antecedent is small businesses. (Although I argue with the GMAT writers on this point - I think either small businesses or big businesses are possible logical antecedents here, and that introduces even more ambiguity. We aren't supposed to be expected to know that "growing and seldom in equilibrium" are more likely characteristics of a small business than a big on. But there's already the problem with "formulas" so it doesn't matter much.)

The correct answer clears up the problems nicely. It makes it clear that the characteristics are describing small businesses and it also uses a pronoun ("them") that can only refer to small businesses structurally (and logically). "Them" can't refer to formulas because if we wanted to refer to formulas at that point in the sentence, we'd have to use the referent "themselves" - formulas do not apply to themselves. And "them" can't refer to big businesses because we've got a comparison: do not apply to A (them) in the same way as to B (big bus.). A and B have to be different things.
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: 683
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2008 1:58 pm
Location: Dubai
Thanked: 73 times
Followed by:2 members

by mals24 » Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:25 pm
Thanks Stacey for the fantastic post. The logic makes more sense now :)
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 Mar 13, 2009 1:00 pm
just to piggyback on what stacey said:

in general, you may want to consider ranking pronoun ambiguity somewhere below genuine grammatical errors on your priority list.

in other words, if choice X is grammatically fine, but contains an ambiguous pronoun, but choice Y contains a genuine grammatical problem (absent subject, poor subject-verb agreement, etc.), then you should pick choice X over choice Y.

--

also:

if a sentence contains more than one possible antecedent for a pronoun, but only one of those antecedents is GRAMMATICALLY PARALLEL to the pronoun - and that's the one that makes sense - then, often, that sentence will be considered correct.

for instance, take a look at SC #19 in the purple OG verbal supplement. in that problem, the pronoun "they" has, in the strictest sense, two possible antecedents - "depressed property values" and "large investors" - but only one of these, the former, is PARALLEL to the pronoun (i.e., both are the SUBJECTS of their respective clauses).
the OG considers this unambiguous enough to be correct.
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
Legendary Member
Posts: 940
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:22 am
Thanked: 55 times
Followed by:1 members

by iamcste » Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:58 pm
Stacey Koprince wrote: I will also say that there is a caveat here - even with what I said above and will say below, the GMAT sometimes is a little... fuzzy... with pronouns.
Thats true.. :D
Top
Post new topic Locked