pyramids of Egypt

[logitech]

Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them.


* took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them
* took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete it
* took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete
* 700,000 artisans took more than 36 years to complete
* to complete them too 700,000 artisans more than 36 years

OA after some discussion

[iamcste]

Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them.


* took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them
* took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete it
* took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete
* 700,000 artisans took more than 36 years to complete
* to complete them too 700,000 artisans more than 36 years

OA after some discussion

B


Them is incorrect for army. Eliminate A and E

D- The army is XXX years old and YYY artisans took

The army took YYY artisans would make sense.

C and B

It clearly refers to the army , while C looks incomplete on reading

I choose B

[iamcste]

As above

[niraj_a]

my vote will rest with C, clear and concise.

[tritrantran]

Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them.


* took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them
* took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete it
* took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete
* 700,000 artisans took more than 36 years to complete
* to complete them too 700,000 artisans more than 36 years

OA after some discussion

B - the subject that took 36 years to complete is the army. Army is singular, therefore we use "it".

[logitech]

OA is C ( This is a GMAT prep question )

The army of terra-cotta warriors {created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife } is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete

I chose B as well but I was wrong...

[schumi_gmat]

I thought that answer was B

In C , it is not clear what took 700000 artisans to complete. Can anyone explain?

[GMATters1001]

took.. is parallel to "is more than" so whatever 'is' also 'took' to be parallel so. IMO the it throws off the parallelism.

You wouldn't say the 'army took more that 200 years to complete it' you would say 'the army took more than 200 years to complete'

[ronniecoleman]

Rivaling the pyramids of Egypt or even the ancient cities of the Maya as an achievement, the army of terra-cotta warriors created to protect Qin Shi Huang, China’s first emperor, in his afterlife is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them.


* took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete them

them --- OUT
* took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete it
Correct

* took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete
should have a pronoun to refer to army

* 700,000 artisans took more than 36 years to complete

not parallel
* to complete them too 700,000 artisans more than 36 years

OUT---Them

[reachac]

I feel the answer should be C. The pronoun 'it' in 'B' is not needed and gives the sentence an awkward structure.

if I look at B, the sentence structure is

....,the army....is more than 2,000 years old and took 700,000 artisans more than 36 years to complete it

The red 'it' dosen't fit in with the greens...

Example: The task was complex and took 2 hours to complete.....
Is there a need for 'it' at the end?....probably no!

Feel C is best among all the available choices.

[raunekk]

i agree with reachac...


"it" in B doesnt have a clear antecedent..

thus C

[iamcste]

i agree with reachac...


"it" in B doesnt have a clear antecedent..

thus C

In my opinion, Not the issue of clear antecedent. Issue is whether "it" is really needed

[vivek.kapoor83]

i couldnt get the meaning of sentence. it wants to say that ...army was created and creation was complete when 7000 artsian were included,then we can read as
army took 2000years and 7000 artisan to complete..So, 'it' is not needed

[logitech]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terracotta_Army

Now it makes sense

[goelmohit2002]

i couldnt get the meaning of sentence. it wants to say that ...army was created and creation was complete when 7000 artsian were included,then we can read as
army took 2000years and 7000 artisan to complete..So, 'it' is not needed

Can someone please tell which grammar rule is broken by inclusion of "it" in option B ?