SC - Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibralta

[thanghnvn]

Thank you Ron, and manhantan experts. This is a great question and I want to summarize it.

Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar, Morocco was also of interest to the French throughout the first half of the twentieth century because they assumed that if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure.
(A) if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always insecure
(B) without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure
(C) their grip on Algeria was not ever secure if they did not hold it
(D) without that, they could never be secure about their grip on Algeria
(E) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it

frist
E is wrong because inverted "would" dose not appear in English grammar. inverted order can be acceptable at the begining of independent clause,not at the begining of the dependent clause such as "that clause"

second
D is wrong because "that" is wrong. pronoun "that", "this" is never stand alone pronoun on gmat. "that" is used in paralel pattern and refer to a noun different from prevous noun. for eample.

My english is good enough to study gmat; that of my friend is not ("that" refer to English of different person, not "my Englsih"

pronoun "it" is used to refer to total the same noun+modifier at the begining. for example

the problem in learning gmat for me is that I do not know how to study; that for you is that you do not study hard("that" refer to a noun different from previous noun"

the problem in learning gmat for me is that I do not know how to study; it is a terible problem.("it" refer to the same noun in at the begining)

third
A and C are wrong because
the sentence talk about assumption, so hepothetical pattern "if did, would do" is required. There is no "would" in A and C. wrong.

the pattern "if did, did" is used to show a observation and is not logic inhere.

Ron, manhantan experts, pls confirm/suplement/modify the 3 points above. the tons of thanks

[jlucero]

thanghnvn-

Everything looks good. I would throw in one last point to eliminate E&C that stands out more than the inverted word order- "it" at the end of the sentence is ambiguous, b/c it could refer to the Strait of Gibraltar or Algeria. Good analysis.

[thanghnvn]

the pattern

if ...do, then... do

is used to show causal facts/observations. This pattern is explained in all grammar book. This pattern is not used to say about conditions.

this is why A and C is wrong. my confusion is caused by my bad knowledge of basic grammar.

is my thinking correct?

[RonPurewal]

the pattern

if ...do, then... do

is used to show causal facts/observations. This pattern is explained in all grammar book. This pattern is not used to say about conditions.

this is why A and C is wrong. my confusion is caused by my bad knowledge of basic grammar.

is my thinking correct?

No. If the sentence were written as "if they did not hold it, (then) their grip on Algeria would never be secure", it would be fine. In both of those choices, "was" is the biggest issue.

By the way, please don't include comments that are so vague as to be meaningless (e.g., "explained in all grammar book[s]"). If you are citing a specific source, then by all means mention that source; otherwise, please just post your question, without distractions. Thanks.

[li.xi811]

Can someone please help me understand why is "it" in choice B unambiguous? Does "it" refer to Morocco?
Does "assumed" imply that we need to use the conditional?

Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

Can someone please help me understand why is "it" in choice B unambiguous? Does "it" refer to Morocco?

To what else could it possibly refer?

Two things to keep in mind here:

1/
If the meaning of a pronoun is perfectly clear in context"”as the meaning of "it" is here"”then the pronoun is not "ambiguous".

2/
The GMAT doesn't test "ambiguous pronouns" anyway, so there's no reason to think about this in the first place.
Pronoun agreement is a simple concept. Why complicate it?

[RonPurewal]

Does "assumed" imply that we need to use the conditional?

Thanks in advance.

There's no conditional here. In this sentence, "would" is the past form of "will".

"Will" is used for the future.
If something WAS "the future" during a past timeframe, but isn't anymore, then it becomes "would".

I know that if I buy this car, I will be happy with it. (I'm shopping for a car right now.)

I knew that if I bought that car, I would be happy with it. (This was in the past. Maybe I bought the car. Maybe I didn't, and now I'm regretting the decision not to buy it.)

[zhuoc312]

Hi instructors,

After reading all the preceding posts, I am greatly impressed by your explanation. Nonetheless, I am still wondering how can I eliminate choice (e) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it?

Thanks a lot!

[RonPurewal]

Hi instructors,

After reading all the preceding posts, I am greatly impressed by your explanation. Nonetheless, I am still wondering how can I eliminate choice (e) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it?

Thanks a lot!

"If they did not hold it" is a counter-factual hypothetical. For that sort of thing, the tenses are different.

E.g.,
Back when I lived in New York, I wore black clothes if it was raining.
––> Actual events. Not counter-factual; not hypothetical. Normal past tense.

If it had been raining yesterday, your leather jacket would have been ruined.
––> Counter-factual hypothetical. It didn't rain yesterday... but here's what would have happened if it had rained.

So, the tense in E is inappropriate. Would have to be something like "if they were to lose it". (Like "had been raining" in the example above, but forward-looking)

[RonPurewal]

^^ You don't have to know the correct version, of course. It's enough to realize that "did" is inappropriate.

[cherryj222]

Hi instructors,

After reading all the preceding posts, I am greatly impressed by your explanation. Nonetheless, I am still wondering how can I eliminate choice (e) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it?

Thanks a lot!

"If they did not hold it" is a counter-factual hypothetical. For that sort of thing, the tenses are different.

E.g.,
Back when I lived in New York, I wore black clothes if it was raining.
––> Actual events. Not counter-factual; not hypothetical. Normal past tense.

If it had been raining yesterday, your leather jacket would have been ruined.
––> Counter-factual hypothetical. It didn't rain yesterday... but here's what would have happened if it had rained.

So, the tense in E is inappropriate. Would have to be something like "if they were to lose it". (Like "had been raining" in the example above, but forward-looking)

Sorry ron. I still have difficulty understanding why choice e is wrong here. Could you please expain again? To me, I think we cannot infer from the contex that "if they did not hold it" is a counter-factual hypothetical. Thus, choiceE here seems to use the "if … then" construction to express a particular case in the future at the time of past. So, what is wrong about my reasoning?
Need your help and thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

I just noticed that this is an OG problem. Unless someone posts a screen shot from GMAT Prep (free software), we can't continue to discuss it here.

Thanks.

[YuY283]

Hi instructors,

After reading all the preceding posts, I am greatly impressed by your explanation. Nonetheless, I am still wondering how can I eliminate choice (e) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it?

Thanks a lot!

"If they did not hold it" is a counter-factual hypothetical. For that sort of thing, the tenses are different.

E.g.,
Back when I lived in New York, I wore black clothes if it was raining.
––> Actual events. Not counter-factual; not hypothetical. Normal past tense.

If it had been raining yesterday, your leather jacket would have been ruined.
––> Counter-factual hypothetical. It didn't rain yesterday... but here's what would have happened if it had rained.

So, the tense in E is inappropriate. Would have to be something like "if they were to lose it". (Like "had been raining" in the example above, but forward-looking)

Hi Ron,

I don't quite get the explanation. "If they were to lose it" counters the future facts. However, in this sentence there is a past tense "assumed" before the conditional clause. Is it still suitable to use "if they were to lose it"?

The official explanation for the choice E in OG is as follows.
"Inverted word order is awkward and confusing; 'it' refers to either Morocco or Algeria" I just don't get it why the inverted word order is awkward is confusing.

Thanks very much

[RonPurewal]

Is it still suitable to use "if they were to lose it"?

that would be workable. but there's no point in discussing it any further here, as it's not an option in this problem.

[RonPurewal]

more generally, in thinking about verb tenses, it's important NOT to get too much into details/nuances.

see, verb tenses (in every language, not just english) are a bottomless pit of nuances, niceties, and 'special' cases—NONE of which will be essential in a GMAT SC problem. if a GMAT SC problem depends upon verb tenses, a knowledge of the very basics should suffice.

this fact is not random. it's an important feature that is necessary if the test is to retain its integrity.
verb tenses, more than any other aspect of the language, are understood subconsciously/intuitively by native speakers but pose an immense challenge to adult learners. (again, this is not true only of english; it's a universal truth.) thus, if any problem REQUIRED an understanding of verb tense beyond the very basics, it would be unacceptably biased against adult learners of english.