During the past decade, the labor market in France has not been operating according to free market principles, but instead stifling functioning through its various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers.

A. principles, but instead stifling functioning through its various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers
B. principles, instead it has been functioning in a stifled manner as a result of various government regulations that restrict the hiring and firing of workers
C. principles, rather functioning despite being stifled as a result of government regulations that variously restrict worker hiring and firing
D. principles; the hiring and firing of workers is restricted there by various government regulations, its functioning being stifled
E. principles; instead, its functioning has been stifled by various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers


I am confused between D and E. The answer choice says that "its" in D lacks a clear antecedent, which I agree with. But, in answer choice E, "its" clearly and unambiguously refers to the “labor market.” I'm having a hard time determining why its is ambiguous in D but not in E.

Pronoun antecedent clarity often relies on the structure of the sentence. Some cues are:

(1) Parallelism: "The labor market ...has not been operating" parallels "its functioning has been stifled." Thus, its = labor market.

(2) Process of elimination: In (E), there is no other singular noun that could be the antecedent. The following nouns are present: the labor market (singular), free market principles (plural), various government regulations (plural), and the hiring and firing (could be treated as singular despite the "and," just because the combination of these things is almost one cliche). But “hiring and firing” is part of a modifier of the object of the verb “has been stifled,” while “its” is the modifier of the subject of that same verb. Thus, “its” cannot refer to hiring and firing.

(3) Logic: Who’s (or what’s) functioning has been stifled? The labor market’s.

_________________
Emily Sledge
Instructor
ManhattanGMAT

I ruled D out because it is in passive voice.
B is in active voice..so I went for it.

how to distinguish whether use of passive voice is OK in a sentence ?

Hi Singh,

The GMAT prefers that we use the passive voice when doings so is necessary to maintain parallelism or clarity of meaning. Thus, the use of passive voice is a preference and not a rule. In this case, D is not incorrect because it uses the passive voice, but rather because of the improper use of its and the fact that the portion after the semicolon does not effectively stand alone as an independent clause.

In short, I recommend to my students to stay away from passive vs. active voice and look for other splits that are more prominent first. In this case, the pronoun issue is clearly more pronounced and is the first split I would attack.

Thanks,
Chris

_________________
Chris Brusznicki
MGMAT Instructor
Chicago, IL

Hello esledge,

Ain't nouns 'the past decade' and 'France' other singular nouns present in the problem statement? Can't 'its' in option E refer to 'the past decade' or 'France'? Does 'its' in option E has clear antecedent? If yes, how?

Thanks! :)

the antecedent is clearly "market", because "decades" and "France" (and for that matter "principles") are inside prepositional phrases. it is almost certain that a pronoun outside a prepositional phrase will not reach into a prepositional phrase for an antecedent. exceptions to this are so rare (and obvious in context) that i would consider it safe to adopt this as a general operating principle for SC problems..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor