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
OG 12 -67
This topic has expert replies
- vineetbatra
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 355
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:42 pm
- Thanked: 2 times
- Followed by:1 members
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:53 pm
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.
We need a 'would' here. 'Was' does not work.
B is the correct answer.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:18 pm
- Location: Hyderabad
- Thanked: 12 times
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
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
- rockeyb
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 537
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 7:15 am
- Location: Nagpur , India
- Thanked: 41 times
- Followed by:1 members
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"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
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.
"Know thyself" and "Nothing in excess"
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?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
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!!
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1404
- Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
- Thanked: 18 times
- Followed by:2 members
why we need "would" .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.
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
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 5:41 pm
- Location: Chennai
- Thanked: 4 times
- Followed by:2 members
- GMAT Score:660
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.
Is caught between a rock and a hard place!
any help, please!tnaim wrote: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?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
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!!
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 364
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:13 am
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:3 members
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
(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
-
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:32 am
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