Dear hey-thru67,

Here's a video explanation of that question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJ1tKMc-EA4

Let me know you have any further questions.

Mike

Mission2012 wrote:HI, Can some expert throw light on question 1.

The intricate structure of the compound insect eye, having hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, help explain why scientists have assumed that it evolved independently of the vertebrate eye.
A: having hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, help explain why scientists have assumed that it
B: having hundreds of miniature eyes that are called ommatidia, helps explain why scientists have assumed that they
C: with its hundreds of miniature eyes that are called ommatidia, helps explain scientists' assuming that they
D: with its hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, help explain scientists' assuming that it
E: with its hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, helps explain why scientists have assumed that it

OA is E

I have two doubts,
1- The explanation says the pronoun "it" correctly refers to singular noun the compound insect eye. But the compound insect eye is the object of "of-" preposition. As far as I know, pronouns can not refer to objects of preposition but the subject of the sentence that is the intricate structure.

Hi, there. I'm happy to help with this.

I'm not sure where you heard the idea that "pronouns can not refer to objects of preposition" --- that's just false. 100% false. Consider ----

The framers of the US Constitution did not anticipate the challenges it would face in a post-industrial world.

The novels of James Joyce reflect his fascination with both word origins and patterns of verbal association.

Those are two perfectly correct sentences, GMAT SC worthy in every way, in which the pronoun (in bold) clearly refers to an antecedent in a prepositional phrase. And, of course, it happens in OG 13 #7, so the GMAT has absolutely no problem with this grammatical structure.

A related problem --- some pundits say that a pronoun's antecedent can't be in the possessive --- for example,
"James Joyce's novels reflect his fascination ..."
The GMAT seems to reject this structure consistently, so I would say it's safe to call this wrong.

Does all this make sense?

Mike

hey_thr67 wrote:the modifier starting with preposition is a noun modifier. The difference between a modifier starting with -ing and a modifier starting with a preposition modifier is that the former one modifies the whole clause but later one modifies that immediate preceding noun. Is my understanding correct?

This is not correct. The rough-and-ready rule is that all modifiers touch the noun the modify. For exceptions to this, see:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/that-vs-which-on-the-gmat/
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... modifiers/
BTW, the "-ing" modifiers are called participles --- you can read more about them here:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/participle ... -the-gmat/
Participles modify only nouns, not whole phrases.

heman2727 wrote:@hey_thr67:
1) Reply for your second question regarding pronoun antecedent. Noun inside the prepositional phrases can't function as subject (exception: Some of the pie is....here 'pie' is subject). But noun present in prepositional phrase can function as antecedent for any pronoun.
Mike@Magoosh: Please confirm my understanding.

I'm not sure if you were referring to hey_thr67's second question. Also, in the phrase, "Some of the pie is ...", "some" is the subject of the sentence, and the preposition phrase "of the pie" is a vital noun modifier. See the links above.
Yes, we agree on the fact that a "noun present in prepositional phrase can function as antecedent for any pronoun."

heman2727 wrote:2) @Mike: suppose questions mentioned below had no error except modifier error with following modifiers
'Having hundreds of miniature eyes called...' and 'With its hundreds....'
These modifiers can refer to 'eye' as well as 'structure'. Am I correct. Please explain us these. I guess hey_thr67 too has the same doubt.

First of all, the "suppose the question had no other errors" assumption would turn it into something that didn't really resemble a GMAT SC question. It's tantamount to saying, "Suppose the GMAT weren't the GMAT: what kind of test would it be?"

Purely grammatically, purely following the clues of grammar, I admit that the structure
"The intricate structure of the compound insect eye, with its hundreds of..."
is ambiguous, in that the "its" could refer to either "structure" or "compound insect eye." BUT, you can NEVER think about GMAT SC only at the level of grammar --- you also always have to think at the levels of LOGIC and MEANING. In the broad comparison of the whole sentence, we see that we are making a comparison to the "vertebrate eye", and so the emphasis is on the qualities of the "compound insect eye" that contrast to the "vertebrate eye". The grammar on its own is not 100% clear, but it is perfectly consistent with the reading that logic supports, and this reading makes the entire sentence clear and unambiguous.

Does all that make sense?

Mike