1000 SC Q # 291, Factory outlet stores (pronoun antecedent)

[venkb]

Hi,

this is a question from 1000SC
291. Factory outlet stores, operated by manufacturers, are usually located miles from downtown and regional shopping centers so as not directly to be competitive against department stores in the same trading area.
(A) so as not directly to be competitive against
(B) in order for them not to have direct competition with
(C) so that they do not compete directly with
(D) in order that they are not directly competitive against
(E) for the purpose of not competing directly with

What is the correct answer?

[venkb]

the answer in the 1000SC is C, but i felt in that choice it is not clear to what they refers, whether to outlets or manufacturers. But the other choices are no good. I went with E as i felt it was better that the pronoun reference problem.

expert opinion please?

[venkb]

In fact in 1000SC i saw many problems in which the correct answer is one that has this pronoun antecend issue.

[Stacey Koprince]

Pronoun is ambiguous. There are 3 plural nouns before "they" (if we use answer choice C): factory outlet stores, manufacturers, and downtown/regional shopping centers. One of those three is then compared with department stores ("compete directly with department stores").

When making a comparison, I'm required to compare between similar things. Comparing manufacturers to department stores doesn't make a lot of sense. But I could reasonably say that either outlet stores or shopping centers can compete directly with department stores. Which is it?

Logically, I can tell you the sentence probably means to refer to the outlet stores. But the sentence is actually ambiguous b/c technically, either one can fit the pronoun and the comparison. The real test depends upon the technical explanation - so it wouldn't give you this choice as the correct answer.

[venkb]

Thanks for your explanation. So when the pronoun can refer to more than one antecedent and if only one of them makes sense in the context of the sentence then the use of the pronoun is correct.

ie in this case if the sentence only had manufacturers and factory outlets the choice C woul have been correct.

Please correct me if i am wrong.

[Stacey Koprince]

The official test is a little ambiguous on this point - so I'll answer you as best I can, but even the real test is a little fuzzy.

When you say "only one makes sense" - there are different ways that something can "make sense." So, for example, I could write a sentence that includes the plural nouns: cats, dogs, and bicycles. Then I talk about how "they" eat cat food. Bicycles don't eat. So I know bicycles don't make sense here - 100% sure. That's one way in which we can say something "doesn't make sense."

Now, in the real world, I can probably assume that the cats are eating cat food. But technically dogs could, too. I can't say 100% that it is the cats - I can only say it logically *should* be the cats. So this is ambiguous.

A great OG question to demonstrate: #12 in the 10th edition

Formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity do not apply to new small businesses in the same way as they do to established big businesses, because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium.

The second "they" is ambiguous ("they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium"). I have three nouns: formulas, small businesses, and big businesses. Formulas can't grow, so it's either big biz or small biz. Logic tells me the clause should be talking about small biz... but technically a particular big biz could be growing and seldom in equilibrium. So it's ambiguous - I have to make clear that I'm talking about small biz.

Does that make sense?
By the way, for pronouns, I recommend studying OG questions, since these are hard questions to mimic.

[venkb]

Yes makes sense. thanks for your explanation. So ideally i should be avoiding choices that have this ambiguity.

[Stacey Koprince]

Yep - you got it!

[mohish]

Pronoun is ambiguous. There are 3 plural nouns before "they" (if we use answer choice C): factory outlet stores, manufacturers, and downtown/regional shopping centers. One of those three is then compared with department stores ("compete directly with department stores").

When making a comparison, I'm required to compare between similar things. Comparing manufacturers to department stores doesn't make a lot of sense. But I could reasonably say that either outlet stores or shopping centers can compete directly with department stores. Which is it?

Logically, I can tell you the sentence probably means to refer to the outlet stores. But the sentence is actually ambiguous b/c technically, either one can fit the pronoun and the comparison. The real test depends upon the technical explanation - so it wouldn't give you this choice as the correct answer.

Hi Stacey, if you look at this sentence (as per one of your other mails), 'they', which is a pronoun-subect of the second half of the sentence, 'structurally' refers to 'factory outlet stores', which is the noun-subject of the first half of the sentence. Even logically, 'they' should refer to 'factory outlet stores'. So, we have a match both logically, as well as structurally. Hence, it makes sense that C should be the answer. Would appreciate your thoughts.

[Stacey Koprince]

Yes, if we look at the options presented in this choice, C is the best of what we're given. I didn't choose anything in my old posts above b/c I don't think this is a great question and I probably wouldn't study from it.

I agree that we have one clear match structurally (factory outlet stores) and, because that one also works logically, that's good enough to accept C. But not a great question overall.

[Pdgmat2010]

someone quoted that this question is from 1000 SC.
But i for sure know that this question occured in ETS paper test 31, Question no 16 and the OA is C.

I solved it today and got this question wrong because i skipped 'C' as soon as i saw 'they' and the 2 contenders preceeding it ( outlets and shopping centers).

[[email protected]]

Hi Stacey,
Great explanation. IMO C is correct because, GMAT is more about picking up the best option available than about picking up the correct answer. In this case, option C "so...that" seems to be the best option available.

[GMATMadeEasy]

@Stacey : Part of the sentence "operated by manufacturers" is an unrestrictive modifier phrase giving extra not necessary information. In addition, manufactureers is object of preposition . Technically speaking , we should not consider this as antecedent. Could you confirm please .

I understand logically it is not the manufacturers of course.

Thanks

[Pdgmat2010]

i thought the rule reg. prepositions is :
' operated by manufacturers' cannot be the subject of the sentence.

Not sure whether this distinction is enough to rule out the above phrase as a possible antecedent for
'they'.

@Stacey ( in case you happen to read this post), since this question is from an official source, is the
real GMAT fuzzy about this rule ( as you've mentioned previously) or Am i reading into the problem too much.

LOL.. i broke into a nervous sweat on getting this one wrong . Kicked myself hard for ruling out
on the basis of 'they'!

[Stacey Koprince]

When this one was originally posted, we were still allowed to post and discuss OG questions online. We aren't any longer, so I have to sort of talk "around" this.

There is sometimes still fuzziness on pronoun issues, but I think they've gotten a bit more strict about this. As a general rule now, I consider two things when assessing possible antecedents: logic and structure.

If logic and structure agree, then the antecedent works. If logic points to one noun and structure points to another, then they don't agree, and I don't choose that answer.

In the original sentence, there are two clauses. The subject of the first clause is "factory outlet stores." The subject of the second clause when using the correct answer is "they." The structural expectation is that the subject pronoun "they" refers to the subject of the preceding clause (in this case, factory outlet stores). Is that also the best choice logically? Yes. So this one's okay.

A similar thought process can be used for that OG question I discussed above but which I can't discuss directly any longer.

GMATMadeEasy, there are some restrictions about which nouns can be the antecedents of which pronouns, yes. BUT it is not the case that the object of a preposition in general cannot be the antecedent of a pronoun. Such nouns are generally not candidates for the subject of a sentence, but they can be antecedents for pronouns.

The general rule regarding prepositional phrases and pronouns is: The noun inside a prepositional phrase that modifies a clause cannot be the antecedent of a pronoun in that same clause.

With a pen, Susie broke it. Susie, with a pen, broke it.

"With a pen" is a prepositional phrase (it begins with the preposition "with") and it modifies the entire clause "Susie broke it." The pronoun "it" in the main clause, then, cannot refer to the noun "pen."

In choice C of the original question above, the "manufacturers" part is modifying part of the first clause. The pronoun "they" is part of the second clause.

With a pen, Susie wrote something, but later she got angry and broke it.
See the difference?