Pronon antecedent

[ssajjan03]

Supernovas destroy their immediate environments in vast explosions, BUT by synthesizing heavy chemical elements, THEY provide the universe with the possibility of biochemistry-based life as we know it.

In the explanation, it says that "THEY" clearly refers to supernovas. Why is there not an ambiguity of antecedent between - supernovas and explosions.
Is it just due to the modifier " by synthesizing heavy chemical elements"

[jnelson0612]

Supernovas destroy their immediate environments in vast explosions, BUT by synthesizing heavy chemical elements, THEY provide the universe with the possibility of biochemistry-based life as we know it.

In the explanation, it says that "THEY" clearly refers to supernovas. Why is there not an ambiguity of antecedent between - supernovas and explosions.
Is it just due to the modifier " by synthesizing heavy chemical elements"

Ideally an antecedent is not a noun in a preposition, and if you look "explosions" is part of the phrase "in vast explosions". Good question!

[mayurpawar1]

Hi, I am new here, and just starting up with the GMAT.
And after looking at this example and the explanation, I understand why "explosions" is not an antecedent but i couldn't figure out why "environments" can't be antecedent for "THEY".

Please explain.

[thevishz]

_____ provide the universe with the possibility of biochemistry-based life as we know it.

Supernovas provide the universe with the possibility of biochemistry-based life as we know it.

Supernovas' environments cannot provide the universe with the possibility of biochemistry-based life as we know it.


So, In case its a good idea to replace the pronoun with multiple antecedents and see which one makes sense. Here " Supernovas" make sense and moreover it it the focus of the sentence . Hence it wins clearly.

[jnelson0612]

That is a very good point, and a nice way to work out pronoun antecedents. :-)

[sundems]

Hi

You say that "An antecedent cannot be a noun in a preposition, and if you look 'explosions' is part of the phrase 'in vast explosions'."

Then, why is there a pronoun 'they' referring to the noun of a prepositional phrase on Page 70 of book Manhattan GMAT SC 4th Edition?

Better: The board is investigating the compensation packages of several executives in order to determine how much THEY may have been improperly awarded.

Please advise.

Thanks
Sunny

[tim]

keep reading! the fact that there was a "best" below the "better" should have made you realize that the "better", although better, was not perfect..

[sundems]

Hi Tim -

I actually did notice that earlier.
I believe that if something is wrong, it is wrong. The question of something being better or best should occur only when it is right.

Are you positively sure that GMAT WON'T present a question on this VERY concept where the "best" is NOT one of the answer choices, but "better" is and the correct answer is indeed the "better"?
Please advise.

Thanks
Sunny

[tim]

the GMAT will never give you a sentence where the credited answer is not 100% grammatically correct, so please don't concern yourself with shades of "rightness" here. the "better" one is NOT correct; that's the point i think you recognized at first and that i've been trying to confirm for you..

[sundems]

But I see the concept (pronoun antecedent as a noun in a prepositional phrase) being accepted in OG13 #7 problem.
Please advise.

Thanks
Sunny

[jnelson0612]

But I see the concept (pronoun antecedent as a noun in a prepositional phrase) being accepted in OG13 #7 problem.
Please advise.

Thanks
Sunny

Good point! I think that the GMAT is not always consistent in its treatment of pronouns. Let's just say that it is *highly desirable* to have a pronoun refer to a noun that is NOT in a prepositional phrase. Here's we're stuck with this construction; we have to have a pronoun (since all answer choices contain pronouns) and there's only one logical noun to be referred to.

[AZ679]

Is this sentence correct with respect to pronoun ambiguity?

Supernovas destroy their immediate environments, but then they are reproduced.

More generally, in compound or complex sentences, is it correct that the antecedent of a subject pronoun used in one clause be the object of another clause?

For example:
I saw the man, but he did not see me.

[RonPurewal]

Is this sentence correct with respect to pronoun ambiguity?

Supernovas destroy their immediate environments, but then they are reproduced.

we can't tell what is reproduced.

if the supernovas are reproduced, then we would get rid of "they" (destroy ... and are ...)

if the environments are reproduced, we'd use a modifier, e.g., "...destroy their immediate environments, which are eventually reproduced"

[RonPurewal]

remember that the above issue (pronoun ambiguity) is not tested on this exam. so there's no point in considering its finer points, or even considering it at all.

[RonPurewal]

More generally, in compound or complex sentences, is it correct that the antecedent of a subject pronoun used in one clause be the object of another clause?

For example:
I saw the man, but he did not see me.

no, there's no such specification.

since we're talking about two different clauses, pretty much any relationship at all can exist here.