Exceptions to the antecendent rule - what could they be?

[anuroopa]

Hi Eric,
I really needed your help on this:
Are there any exceptions to the antecedent rule -

when should one use logic (always - i guess ) as against looking for a pure match.

I am citing 2 examples:

By a vote of 9 to 0, the supreme court awarded the CIA broad discretionary powers enabling it to withhold from the public the identities of its sources of intelligence information.

a. enabling it to withhold from the public
b. for it to withhold from the public
c. for withholding disclosure to the public of
d. that enable them to withhold from public disclosure
e. that they can withhold public disclosure of

Source: OG

Ans: A

Stacey had replied as follows:

You can also use logic. The "powers" are "enabling it" - who has the "powers"? The sentence tells us that the Supreme Court awarded the "powers" to the CIA. So the holder of the "powers" is enabled...

Example 2:

Qn:870
To maintain a high demand for their product, the manufacturers first took over the marketing and sales functions previously performed by outside agents; next, they began changing their advertising campaigns monthly to keep pace with the rapid changes in consumers’ lives.

(A) they began changing
(B) this began changing
(C) the former began changing
(D) to begin changing
(E) to change

Official Answer: A
Source : 1000 sc

I understand for the sentence to function 'they' must refer to 'manufacturers' but is it not a violation to the GMAT rule cos 'they' could refer to the outside agents as well

Even though I am able to answer these questions - not understanding the real rule behind them is killing me

Please help - I am writing my GMAT on the 16th of next month

Thanks,
Anuroopa

[amitamit2020]

I think "Anuroopa" is correct, "THEY" could refer to Outside agents as well. The correct answer should be "C". any comments pl.?

[Stacey Koprince]

Yes, the 1000 sc answer is bad. When you are having to fall back to the "logic" test for antecedent, it is the case that it's a little fuzzy.

I always think, "Would an 8th-grader understand this?" (Or someone about 13 years old.)

An 8th grader wouldn't know whether the manufacturers or the agents were conducting the activities in the second half of the sentence. Since both theoretically could, it's ambiguous.

A good example of the distinction:

First, SC #65 from 11th edition (go look at it before you keep reading)

"them" and "they" technically refer to the growers (!) in the original sentence but should refer to the citrus. (We cannot process the growers into juice concentrate!) So not ambiguous (although there is a different problem with the pronouns).

Second, SC #12 from the 10th edition (which I don't have a copy of - sorry. If someone has, please post!) again, go look at it before you keep reading


the 2nd "they" (NOT the first) could technically refer to either small or big businesses. We know they're probably talking about the small businesses, but would a 13-year-old know that? No. So, ambiguous.

[anuroopa]

Thanks Stacey - Is there a question in the 11th edition I can use to clarify this?

Can one of you post the question (from the 10th edition) Stacey is referring to - I only have access to the 11th edition

Thanks
Anuroopa

[aim-wsc]

12.

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.
(A) 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.
(B) Because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium, 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.
(C) Because they are growing and are seldom in equilibrium, new small businesses are not subject to the
same applicability of formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt to equity as established big
businesses.
(D) Because new small businesses are growing and are seldom in equilibrium, formulas for cash flow and
the ratio of debt to equity do not apply to them in the same way as to established big businesses.
(E) New small businesses are not subject to the applicability of formulas for cash flow and the ratio of debt
to equity in the same way as established big businesses, because they are growing and are seldom in
equilibrium.

Select below to check the OG-10 explanation :

In A, the they after because is ambiguous; it seems illogically to refer to Formulas because they and Formulas are each the grammatical subject of a clause and because the previous they refers to Formulas. In A and B, do
not apply to... in the same way as they do to is wordy and awkward. D, the best choice, says more concisely
in the same way as to. Also in B, because they refers to formulas, the introductory clause states confusedly
that the formulas are growing. In C and E, subject to the [same] applicability of... is wordy, awkward, and
imprecise; furthermore, are is preferable either before or after established big businesses to complete the
comparison. Finally, the referent of they is not immediately clear in E.

[montz]

Qn:870
To maintain a high demand for their product, the manufacturers first took over the marketing and sales functions previously performed by outside agents; next, they began changing their advertising campaigns monthly to keep pace with the rapid changes in consumers’ lives.

(A) they began changing
(B) this began changing
(C) the former began changing
(D) to begin changing
(E) to change

Official Answer: A
Source : 1000 sc

I think the official answer is the correct answer.

To maintain a high demand for their product, the manufacturers did two things: First they took over the...and next they began changing...

'They' does not refer to outside agents because whoever took the first step, will take the next step. If 'they' referred to outside agents then it would be their first step and not the next because we are not told about their first step anywhere earlier in the sentence. Looking at the entire sentence 'they' refers to manufacturers.

Makes any sense or I am thinking too logically??

[Leonard C]

Hey guys, I posted a message on this very subject under the heading "Pronouns and Antecedents". Welcome your comments. I agree however that in many instances we need to use logic or the context of the sentence to understand the antecedent of the pronoun.

A word of caution on the 1000s - I have been advised to take them with a grain of salt as the style of the questions on the 1000s may not be consistent with the actual GMAT (I have found this to be the case, and in fact a colleague of mine who attained a perfect score told me to ignore them totally and focus on the OGs). I am not suggesting that you ignore them, but the OG should be your first and foremost reference in all things.

Best of luck to all.

[jangojess]

phew!!!! u made my life more relaxing...some of the ans in 1000 SC were totally against my reasoning and i was worrying that i was not up to the mark in verbal part... but ya...there are some good Qs in 1000 SC and as and when u take the mock tests then u come to know the actual difficulty of Qs...