The first detailed study of magpie attacks in Australia indicates that by the time they had reached adulthood, 98 percent of men and 75 percent of women born in the country have been attacked by the birds.

a.) by the time they had reached adulthood, 98 percent of men and 75 percent of women born in the country have been attacked by the birds.
b.) by the time they reach adulthood, 98 percent of men and 75 percent of women, who were born in the country, had been attacked by the birds
c.) by the time they reached adulthood, 98 percent of men and 75 percent of women born in the country had been attacked by the birds
d.) 98 percent of men and 75 percent of women that were born in the country were attacked by the birds by the time they reach adulthood
e.) 98 percent of men and 75 percent of women who were born in the country, by the time they reached adulthood had been attacked by the birds


OA: C

I answered E for this question, but now that I look back and reread the problem with Answer E, I understand why this answer choice is a bit awkward. However I can't find anything grammatically incorrect with the sentence.

Looking at the answer choices, my first instinct is to eliminate choices A, B, and C because the fourth word, "they", seems problematic to me. I know that sometimes sentences can have a construction of this type. I don't recall the technical names for a sentence like this, but an example would be: "After he went to the park, Johnny decided to go home." But despite knowing this, I still think the "they" in A,B,C is ambiguous since it can refer to either the "magpie attacks". Of course, logically, magpie attacks cannot reach adulthood, so I further assume that the question was trying to imply that -- by the time magpies reach adulthood, they attack 98% of men and 75% of women. Since the intent of the sentence is unclear, "they" is incorrect.

I am guessing my reasoning is incorrect since I got the problem wrong, but I can't figure out why. I think the problem might be that there are some sentences where a pronoun doesn't have the clearest antecedent, but the sentence is still grammatically correct and the pronoun is clear enough because of the context - but I can't figure out when these cases hold true. Can you perhaps provide some examples?

Another problem I have is - in choices A,B,C (and in fact D and E), do the "they"'s refer to the men/women, or the percents?

Lastly, in sentences like D and E, is "that" or "who" the proper word to describe "98 percent of men and 75 percent of women"? I know that "who" should only be used for people but am not sure if we should be describing the percentages or the men/women in this case.

Thanks!

A:Incorrect Tense error.. Past perfact and Present perfact is not correct. Sentence construction required simple past and past perfact because two events are happened at different time. "They" is correctly used for compound "98 percent of men and 75 percent of women"
B: Incorrect: Tense error.. Past perfact and Simple Present is not correct. Sentence construction required simple past and past perfact because two events are happened at different time
C: Correct : Sentence construction required simple past and past perfact because two events are happened at different time
D: Incorrect: Altered meaning :"Who" should used for "98 percent of men and 75 percent of women". Also sentence says that there were "98 percent of men and 75 percent of women" who born in country, others were not born in the country but actually sentance want to say that out of 100%, 98 percent of men and 75 percent of women were hit by birds.
E Incorrect: Replaced "that" with "who" but other error is same as in D

our understanding of the gmat's pronoun rules has evolved by leaps and bounds recently.

in particular, we have discovered that the gmat actually has much, much more tolerance for ambiguous pronouns than we had previously thought.

so, a takeaway for you:
the rules on ambiguous pronouns are NOT absolute.

there are only two ABSOLUTE RULES for pronouns:
(1) the pronoun must stand for a noun that is actually PRESENT in the sentence;
(2) the pronoun and the noun must MATCH IN TERMS OF SINGULAR/PLURAL.

the other "rules", such as those that govern ambiguity of pronouns, are more like "guidelines" or "suggestions".
therefore, you should leave those criteria for last - i.e., until after you've narrowed down the choices based on all other criteria that you can find.



examples of what, exactly?
do you want more sentences in which there are pronouns that are technically "ambiguous" but are actually correct? there are plenty of those on this forum.

try the following on for size:
pronoun-doubt-t7303.html
maya-and-aztec-t2690-15.html




if something appears in ALL FIVE CHOICES, you can ignore it.

and, on top of that, if something appears in all five choices, then you KNOW that it is OK - because one of those choices must, after all, be the correct answer, and everything in the correct answer is correct.



you want "who".

it's not the percentage that was born in the country.
use context:
you are taking a percentage of ALL people who were born in the country. therefore, the "who" refers loudly and clearly to "men" / "women", not to the percentages.

I'm still confused as to why 'B' could not be the correct answer. It used the past perfect 'had been'.

I believe B is incorrect because they were attacked by the birds before they reached adulthood. So 'reach' should be in the simple past i.e 'reached'.

However, I have a doubt regarding the OA:
Without 'who', doesn't the sentence read like this-
by the time they reached adulthood, 98 percent of men and 75 percent of women born in the country had been attacked by the birds.

It seems as if two separate albeit incorrect categories have been established.


Vivek.

What are the differences between options C and E? Why E is wrong?
I do not understand what are the differences in the meaning, although I know that there are severals because the modifiers are placed in different places.

in (b), the past perfect is inappropriately matched with the OTHER verb, which is in the present tense.

either of the following two constructions would be appropriate:
...by the time they reach adulthood, they have been attacked...
...by the time they reached adulthood, they had been attacked...

you can't "mix and match" between these - i.e., reach + had been is wrong, as is reached + have been.

hmm. well, the major problem is that choice (e) attempts to set off a modifier with a single comma (on the left, but NOT on the right).

you can't do this. if a modifier is in the middle of a sentence, then you must either
* set it off with TWO commas, one on each side; or
* not set it off with commas at all.

the man who showed up yesterday is back again --> ok (meaning = there is more than one man, and i have to clarify that it's the one who showed up yesterday)
the man, who showed up yesterday, is back again --> ok (meaning = we already know which man; i'm merely providing more detail)
the man, who showed up yesterday is back again --> not ok
the man who showed up yesterday, is back again --> not ok

--

choice (e) is also fatally awkward, although it would probably take a native speaker (if not a seasoned writer of formal english) to ascertain that.

I still can't tell why E is not correct (other than it's awkward).. what are the rules that E is breaking? Thanks!

that choice is incorrect because it contains a modifier ("by the time they reached adulthood") that is blocked off by a comma on one side, but not on the other side.
a modifier must be either blocked off by commas or not blocked off by commas. you can't block off a modifier with a comma on one side but not on the other.


the only exception to this rule occurs in the case of modifiers that are not actually blocked off by commas, but which happen to be placed next to other construction that contain commas as a matter of necessity.
for instance:
A man from Tornio, Finland, who has developed several innovative cell-phone applications will be speaking at today's meeting.
in this sentence, it appears that "who has developed severas innovative cell-phone applications" is blocked off by only one comma, but it really isn't -- the comma belongs to the foregoing construction ("from Tornio, Finland"), since city/state and city/country are always followed by commas.
i.e., the real structure of this sentence is
A man from Tornio, Finland, who has developed several innovative cell-phone applications will be speaking at today's meeting.

this sentence is also a little bit awkward in the sense that the referent of "by the time they reached adulthood" is not entirely clear -- the sentence could also be interpreted as referring to people who "had been born in the country by the time they reached adulthood".
i mean, heh... but still, technically that's an ambiguity.

Hi, Ron,

Basing on your explanation, I believe that pronoun in D is more or less OK. What other flaws violate Option D?

Thanks

* the modifier "that..."is used to refer to people. ("that" can only be used to refer to non-persons; it must be changed to "who" for people)

* "reach" is in the present tense; these people reached adulthood in the past, so that tense makes no sense.

Isn't
"by the time they reach adulthood, 98 percent of men and 75 percent of women born in the country have been attacked by the birds"
a better answer than all the 5 options as the the sentence starts in present tense with "indicates that"?

a statistical study must examine things that have already happened, so, no.

Hi,

How is 'they' ambiguous?

it's a study of 'magpie attacks'

something similar to: japan's population, in which Japan is never mentioned.

Am i missing something? Pls explain.

Rob