need some Expert advice.

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 5:04 pm
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:760

need some Expert advice.

by magnus opus » Sat Sep 18, 2010 1:36 am
I am slightly doubtful regarding certain advanced uses of pronoun ambiguity and reference- To illustrate my concerns I have cited three examples from the O.G
The first Two are regarding pronoun reference and ambiguity
The last concerns pronoun reference to a possessive noun.

Your reply will make the greatest difference. Thanks.


O.G 10
Q.67 Congress is debating a bill requiring certain employers provide workers with unpaid leave so as to care forsick or newbom children.
(A) provide workers with unpaid leave so as to
(B) to provide workers with unpaid leave so as to
(C) provide workers with unpaid leave in order that they
(D) to provide workers with unpaid leave so that they can
(E) provide workers with unpaid leave and

D is the OA..

-It is indeed the best option, however i have doubt whether "they" can illogically refer to employers. Because of this, B - also seems a contender.
-Is the "so as to" construction faulty primarily because it portends the wrong meaning -that employers provide unpaid leave in kind consideration of new born children- or it is a faulty grammatical construction so it is wrong?

Take question 51 in the Og 10.
-In Choice A "it" can correctly refer to vision or illogically refer to baby. There are other errors in the sentence but this is one of them.
So, clearly logic is NOT a basis for excluding pronoun ambiguity, rather it is the basis from which it stems. So many times OG has eliminated options citing pronoun ambiguity as an error( in which one of the referrant are indeed illogical)


As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision, it would be rated
about 20/500. or legally blind if it were an adult with such vision.
(A) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision, it would be
rated about 20/500, or legally blind if it were an adult with such vision.
(B) A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated
about 20/500, or legally blind as an adult
(C) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb, its rudimentary sense of vision would be rated
about 20/500; qualifying it to be legally blind if an adult
(D) A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated
about 20/500; an adult with such vision would be deemed legally blind.
(E) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb, its rudimentary sense of vision, which would
deemed legally blind for an adult, would be rated about 20/500.



Possessive pronoun
Manhattan Sc guide says that only possessive pronouns can refer back to possessive nouns. However in the following example an objective pronoun refers back to a possessive noun( godess bona dea's)

Among the objects found in the excavated temple were small terra-cotta effigies left by supplicants who were either asking the goddess Bona Dea's aid in healing physical and mental ills or thanking her for such help.

(A) in healing physical and mental ills or thanking her for such help (correct answer)

(B) in healing physical and mental ills and to thank her for helping
(C) in healing physical and mental ills, and thanking her for helping
(D) to heal physical and mental ills or to thank her for such help
(E) to heal physical and mental ills or thanking her for such help
Source: — Sentence Correction |

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 5:04 pm
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:760

by magnus opus » Sat Sep 18, 2010 1:39 am
Could someone please share the correct methodology to use pronoun ambiguity as an elimination strategy?

Legendary Member
Posts: 520
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2010 10:44 am
Thanked: 70 times
Followed by:6 members

by niksworth » Sat Sep 18, 2010 9:35 am
First, please ensure that the the part of the sentence to be rewritten is underlined. Otherwise, the effort to understand the answer choices in relation to the question is monumental.
magnus opus wrote: O.G 10
Q.67 Congress is debating a bill requiring certain employers provide workers with unpaid leave so as to care forsick or newbom children.
(A) provide workers with unpaid leave so as to
(B) to provide workers with unpaid leave so as to
(C) provide workers with unpaid leave in order that they
(D) to provide workers with unpaid leave so that they can
(E) provide workers with unpaid leave and

D is the OA..

-It is indeed the best option, however i have doubt whether "they" can illogically refer to employers. Because of this, B - also seems a contender.
-Is the "so as to" construction faulty primarily because it portends the wrong meaning -that employers provide unpaid leave in kind consideration of new born children- or it is a faulty grammatical construction so it is wrong?
1. they can logically refer only to workers. However, grammatically, they can refer to both workers and employers.
2. so as to idiom is not wrong per se. So as to means in order to. The use of so as to is incorrect in this question because it seems to illogically suggest that the employers are to care for the sick and newborn children.

Even though D is not a stellar sentence in itself (owing to two possible grammatical antecedents of they), it is undoubtedly the the best option here. The sentence requires subjunctive mood verb form, so only B and D are contenders. B is incorrect on account of use of so as to, as noticed above.
magnus opus wrote: Take question 51 in the Og 10.
-In Choice A "it" can correctly refer to vision or illogically refer to baby. There are other errors in the sentence but this is one of them.
So, clearly logic is NOT a basis for excluding pronoun ambiguity, rather it is the basis from which it stems. So many times OG has eliminated options citing pronoun ambiguity as an error( in which one of the referrant are indeed illogical)


As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision, it would be rated
about 20/500. or legally blind if it were an adult with such vision.
(A) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision, it would be
rated about 20/500, or legally blind if it were an adult with such vision.
(B) A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated
about 20/500, or legally blind as an adult
(C) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb, its rudimentary sense of vision would be rated
about 20/500; qualifying it to be legally blind if an adult
(D) A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated
about 20/500; an adult with such vision would be deemed legally blind.
(E) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb, its rudimentary sense of vision, which would
deemed legally blind for an adult, would be rated about 20/500.
Option A has 2 it. The first it has 2 possible grammatical antecedents. (baby and vision). The key is that A has other errors, as you rightly noticed, which help you rule it out. D, the right answer, is absolutely devoid of any errors.
magnus opus wrote: Possessive pronoun
Manhattan Sc guide says that only possessive pronouns can refer back to possessive nouns. However in the following example an objective pronoun refers back to a possessive noun( godess bona dea's)

Among the objects found in the excavated temple were small terra-cotta effigies left by supplicants who were either asking the goddess Bona Dea's aid in healing physical and mental ills or thanking her for such help.

(A) in healing physical and mental ills or thanking her for such help (correct answer)

(B) in healing physical and mental ills and to thank her for helping
(C) in healing physical and mental ills, and thanking her for helping
(D) to heal physical and mental ills or to thank her for such help
(E) to heal physical and mental ills or thanking her for such help
The question whether possessive nouns can act as antecedents of non possessive pronouns has been hotly debated among grammarians. Indeed, GMAC itself has flip flopped over the issue. However, note that her is present in all answer choices and the B/C/D/E are incorrect because of other reasons.

So what do we do while facing such confusing circumstances? My approach on issues where there is a room for grammatical debate (like possible antecedents of pronouns / Possessive noun as an antecedent of non possessive pronoun among others) is as follows-
1. Remove all options which violate clear grammatical rules.
2. Of the remaining options (which have debatable grammatical rules), make a judgement as to which makes the gravest error.
3. Always keep logic within the bounds of analysis.
4. See which sentence delivers the idea in the clearest, concise and unambiguous manner. (i.e. do not be rabid about grammar)
5. Generally, GMAC will make your task easier by introducing other errors in the choices which are not correct. (As seen in all the three questions above)

Perhaps an expert may throw some more light on these controversial subjects.
scio me nihil scire

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:32 am
as we've seen again and again and again and again, not all ambiguous pronouns are incorrect!

so here's the simplest way of making the decision:

1) if you see an AMBIGUOUS PRONOUN that is REPLACED BY THE CORRECT SPECIFIC NOUN in the other choices, then eliminate the ambiguous pronoun and keep the specific noun.
for an example, see problem 68 in the blue 2nd edition OG verbal supplement, in which "them" is replaced by "these companies". since that's the correct noun, you would want to go ahead and eliminate the ambiguous "them".

HOWEVER,
2) if you see an ambiguous pronoun that is NOT replaced by the correct specific noun in other choices, then DON'T eliminate it!
for an example, see problem 21 in the same OG verbal supplement (in which the correct answer contains a technically ambiguous pronoun).
or see the problems in this thread!
magnus opus wrote: Q.67 Congress is debating a bill requiring certain employers provide workers with unpaid leave so as to care forsick or newbom children.
(A) provide workers with unpaid leave so as to
(B) to provide workers with unpaid leave so as to
(C) provide workers with unpaid leave in order that they
(D) to provide workers with unpaid leave so that they can
(E) provide workers with unpaid leave and
here, "they" is ambiguous, but "they" is NOT replaced in other choices by "(those) workers".
therefore, DO NOT ELIMINATE.
As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision, it would be rated
about 20/500. or legally blind if it were an adult with such vision.
(A) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision, it would be
rated about 20/500, or legally blind if it were an adult with such vision.
(B) A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated
about 20/500, or legally blind as an adult
(C) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb, its rudimentary sense of vision would be rated
about 20/500; qualifying it to be legally blind if an adult
(D) A baby emerges from the darkness of the womb with a rudimentary sense of vision that would be rated
about 20/500; an adult with such vision would be deemed legally blind.
(E) As a baby emerges from the darkness of the womb, its rudimentary sense of vision, which would
deemed legally blind for an adult, would be rated about 20/500.
here, "it" is NOT replaced by "the baby". therefore, don't eliminate because of the ambiguity.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:26 am
also:

if the same pronoun appears more than once in the same sentence, then that pronoun must stand for the same noun throughout the sentence.

In this rule, different cases of the same pronoun count as "the same pronoun"!!

e.g.
* if you see they, them, and/or their, then any and all instances of these pronouns MUST stand for the same things/people.
* if you see he, him, and/or his, then any and all instances of these pronouns MUST stand for the same man.
* if you see she and/or her, then any and all instances of these pronouns MUST stand for the same woman.
* if you see he or she and/or him or her, then any and all instances of these pronouns MUST stand for the same theoretical person.
* if you see it and/or its, then any and all instances of these pronouns MUST stand for the same thing.

note that this is a flagrant violation of spoken-language conventions; for instance, it's perfectly ok to say, out loud, "The Lions had lost eight straight to the Packers, but they beat them this year."

also note that this rule does not apply to relative pronouns ("which", "who", "that", etc.)

--

in the problem above about the baby, you can use this rule to eliminate choice (a):
two instances of "it"
the first "it" is trying to stand for "the baby's vision"
the second "it" is trying to stand for "the baby"
not ok; these aren't the same
eliminate!
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron

• Page 1 of 1