I think A does not work because of this part ->"their grip on Algeria was always insecure. ".
We need a 'would' here. 'Was' does not work.

B is the correct answer.

in D, "that" is wrong, "it" should be used

but I do not understand why ? pls, help.

Meaning of the sentence
Morocco affords strategic proximity to Strait of Gibraltar
Morocco is also of interest to the French(people) because they assume that without Morocco, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria.

Now if we use that the sentence becomes

Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar, Morocco was also of interest to the French throughout the first half of the twentieth century because they assumed that without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria

that might refer to at least two things here
1. Morocco
2. interest in Morocco

while the usage of it makes the sentence clearer because 'it' could only refer to Morocco
Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar, Morocco was also of interest to the French throughout the first half of the twentieth century because they assumed that without it, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria

Hope this helps

vineetbatra wrote:Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar, Morocco was also of interest to the French throughout the first half of the twentieth century because they assumed that if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure.
(A) if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure
(B) without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure
(C) their grip on Algeria was not ever secure if they did not hold it
(D) without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria
(E) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it

OA is B

I did not like A because "it" is in the object case and Morocco is the subject. Please let me know if my thinking is correct.

Thanks,

Vineet

If we look at this question both A and B are correct . But as you have rightly pointed out IT is in the object case in option A, but if you look at the main clause "Morocco was also of interest to the French throughout the first half of the twentieth century"

the pronoun IT in the subordinate clause should be in the subject position in order to maintain parallelism and thats why

(A) if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure - is in correct

and

(B) without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure - is correct.

vijay_venky wrote:Meaning of the sentence


Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar, Morocco was also of interest to the French throughout the first half of the twentieth century because they assumed that without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria

that might refer to at least two things here
1. Morocco
2. interest in Morocco

while the usage of it makes the sentence clearer because 'it' could only refer to Morocco


Hope this helps

Would anyone please help me understand why "it" in that question refers "only" to Morocco while "that' in answer D could refer to either "morocco" or "interest in Morocco". what's the rule here? what am I missing?
Also, I know that my understanding must be wrong but I always though that the pronoun would refer to the closest name or name phrase that comes before it, so I thought that "--Affording strategic ........the first half of the twentieth century because they assumed that if they did not hold IT...." I thought that IT here would refer to the "first half o the twentieth century" since it's the closest name clause that precedes it.
Your help and time are much appreciated!!

beatthegmat2910 wrote:I think A does not work because of this part ->"their grip on Algeria was always insecure. ".
We need a 'would' here. 'Was' does not work.

B is the correct answer.

why we need "would" .

two following patterns is grammatical

if I got good gmat score, I went to business schools

if I got good gmat score, I would go to business schools

vineetbatra wrote:Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar, Morocco was also of interest to the French throughout the first half of the twentieth century because they assumed that if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure.
(A) if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure
(B) without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure
(C) their grip on Algeria was not ever secure if they did not hold it
(D) without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria
(E) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it

OA is B

I did not like A because "it" is in the object case and Morocco is the subject. Please let me know if my thinking is correct.

Thanks,

Vineet

Vineet,
When you post questions along with it's OA's, make sure you use the spoiler feature on the OA. The spoiler feature has been incorporated to obscure the OA, or any information that the reader might not want to know before he finishes analyzing the question completely.

tnaim wrote:

vijay_venky wrote:Meaning of the sentence


Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar, Morocco was also of interest to the French throughout the first half of the twentieth century because they assumed that without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria

that might refer to at least two things here
1. Morocco
2. interest in Morocco

while the usage of it makes the sentence clearer because 'it' could only refer to Morocco


Hope this helps

Would anyone please help me understand why "it" in that question refers "only" to Morocco while "that' in answer D could refer to either "morocco" or "interest in Morocco". what's the rule here? what am I missing?
Also, I know that my understanding must be wrong but I always though that the pronoun would refer to the closest name or name phrase that comes before it, so I thought that "--Affording strategic ........the first half of the twentieth century because they assumed that if they did not hold IT...." I thought that IT here would refer to the "first half o the twentieth century" since it's the closest name clause that precedes it.
Your help and time are much appreciated!!

any help, please!

hi,

pl. explain why E can't be correct.

regards,


Ansumania

We can easily eliminate the incorrect options here:

(A) if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure----Incorrect

IF PAST, X WOULD----this construction is violating

(B) without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure---Correct

(C) their grip on Algeria was not ever secure if they did not hold it----Incorrect

IF PAST, X WOULD----this construction is violating

(D) without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria---Incorrect

We are the talking about the grip on Algeria to be secure.....Weird construction

(E) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it ----Incorrect

"it" in the end is ambiguous, not sure what it points to, Morocco or Algeria

Can someone please explain to me why there's no need for comma after "it". I crossed out B b/c I assumed you need a comma ("that without it, their grip on Algeria would never be secure") for the sentence to work