GMAT Prep Star Power

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

Redeem

This topic has expert replies

Post new topic Locked

Previous Topic Next Topic

vineetbatra: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 355; Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:42 pm; Thanked: 2 times; Followed by:1 members

GMAT Prep Star Power

by vineetbatra » Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:10 pm

were it not for the fusion-powered heat and radiation that rush from its core, instead its own weight would cause a star to collapse

1.
2. Instead star would have collapsed under its own weight
3. a star would have to be collapsing under its own weight
4. a star would collapse under its own weight
5. its own weight would have caused a star's collapse

Why is 5 wrong, here its is working as a placeholder for Star's.

OA is 4

Quote

Source: Beat The GMAT — Sentence Correction | Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:10 pm

capnx: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 268; Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:22 am; Thanked: 19 times; Followed by:1 members; GMAT Score:700

by capnx » Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:46 pm

5 is not precise. "its own weight would have caused a star's collapse", the indefinite article makes it ambiguous WHICH star would collapse.

In 4, it's clear, concise, and the modification makes logical sense.

Quote

sudi760mba: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 85; Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 2:21 am; Thanked: 1 times

Re: GMAT Prep Star Power

by sudi760mba » Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:28 pm

Here's what I see as wrong with 5. What is "its" referring to? Seems to me like a misplaced modifer. I agree with 4 as there's a rule that suggests that the modifier should be as close to the word that is modified. 3 and 4 would match but 3 is awkard so 4 it is.

vineetbatra wrote:were it not for the fusion-powered heat and radiation that rush from its core, instead its own weight would cause a star to collapse

1.
2. Instead star would have collapsed under its own weight
3. a star would have to be collapsing under its own weight
4. a star would collapse under its own weight
5. its own weight would have caused a star's collapse

Why is 5 wrong, here its is working as a placeholder for Star's.

OA is 4

Quote

GMAT/MBA Expert

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

Re: GMAT Prep Star Power

by lunarpower » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:28 am

vineetbatra wrote:Why is 5 wrong, here its is working as a placeholder for Star's.

OA is 4

nope. not valid.

in general, if you're going to use a possessive pronoun to refer to ANOTHER possessive, then the pronoun must come after the referent.
(note that this rule makes it really easy to fix sentences like #5; just switch the pronoun and the noun, and you're in business.)
in fact, now that i think about it...
if a possessive pronoun PRECEDES a possessive noun, then the assumption is that it DOESN'T stand for that noun.

simple example:
his mother talked with joe's father.
in this sentence, the implication is that someone else's mother - i.e., NOT joe's mother - talked to joe's father. if it were joe's mother, then the sentence would be written, much more naturally, as joe's mother talked with his father.

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 Ã Ron en franÃ§ais
Voit esittÃ¤Ã¤ kysymyksiÃ¤ Ron:lle myÃ¶s suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vÃªtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vÃªtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

Quote

GMAT/MBA Expert

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

by lunarpower » Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:33 am

also, the tense of #5 ("would have caused") is incorrect.

this sentence is discussing the purely hypothetical result of a purely hypothetical situation, in the present. so you use the subjunctive with the hypothesis (the "what if" part) of the sentence, and "would" in the consequent.

"would have" is reserved for sentences that describe the hypothetical alternate outcome of some past event. you use the past perfect in the hypothesis, and "would have" in the consequent.
if she had told me about the traffic delays, i would have left home earlier.
(note: this is a form that most native speakers will SAY incorrectly; most native speakers will incorrectly use "would have" in BOTH parts of this sentence.)

Quote

vineetbatra: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 355; Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:42 pm; Thanked: 2 times; Followed by:1 members

by vineetbatra » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:48 am

Thanks a lot Lunar power, that makes a lot more sense now.

Quote

kamalsinghy: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 41; Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:09 am; Thanked: 2 times

by kamalsinghy » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:07 am

Hi Ron,

Could you please shed more light on the first part of the sentence? It's not at all related to the correct option. I just wanted to know what the first part is playing the role in this sentence. I am not able to figure out whether it is modifier or conditional sentence. I am non-native speaker so wanted to know the essence of these kind of sentences.

Thanks.

Quote

GMAT/MBA Expert

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

by lunarpower » Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:12 am

hi -

"were it..." is another way of introducing an "if"-type clause.

in particular, "were it not for X, ..." is essentially equivalent to "if X did not happen/exist, ..."

therefore, the first part of the sentence sets up a hypothetical.

kamalsinghy wrote:Hi Ron,

Could you please shed more light on the first part of the sentence? It's not at all related to the correct option. I just wanted to know what the first part is playing the role in this sentence. I am not able to figure out whether it is modifier or conditional sentence. I am non-native speaker so wanted to know the essence of these kind of sentences.

Thanks.

Quote

bvn: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 63; Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 7:38 am

by bvn » Sun Sep 26, 2010 7:41 am

lunarpower wrote:hi -

"were it..." is another way of introducing an "if"-type clause.

in particular, "were it not for X, ..." is essentially equivalent to "if X did not happen/exist, ..."

therefore, the first part of the sentence sets up a hypothetical.

Thanks.

[/quote]

Ron, i think that were it not = it were not . Could you explain more about this type!

Quote

GMAT/MBA Expert

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

by lunarpower » Sun Sep 26, 2010 2:10 pm

bvn wrote:
lunarpower wrote:hi -

"were it..." is another way of introducing an "if"-type clause.

in particular, "were it not for X, ..." is essentially equivalent to "if X did not happen/exist, ..."

therefore, the first part of the sentence sets up a hypothetical.

Thanks.
Ron, i think that were it not = it were not . Could you explain more about this type!

there's really not a whole lot else that i can explain, other than what i wrote above:
were it not for X, ...
is equivalent to
if X did not happen/exist, ... or if X had not happened/existed, ...

for instance:
were it not for the penalty received by Smith in the fourth quarter, we would have won the game
is the same as
if Smith had not received the penalty in the fourth quarter, we would have won the game

--

you actually can't start a sentence with just "it were", since "it" is singular and "were" is a plural verb.
the only instance in which you could see that sequence of words is the hypothetical subjunctive, in which you have the construction if it were...

there's a good explanation of the hypothetical subjunctive in topic #1 on the following web page:
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/grammar_subjunctive.html