Advice needed on SC problem from ETS paper exam

[vikram4689]

Can anyone please tell me what "it" in answer choice c is referring to? Is "it" referring to study?

this is an example of the ONLY pronoun that is allowed to go without standing for a noun.

THE ONLY PRONOUNS ON THE GMAT THAT DON'T HAVE TO STAND FOR NOUNS:
It + description + that + complete sentence (independent clause)
It + description + to + verb (infinitive)
It + (TO BE verb) + NOUN + that/who + verb

these "it"s DO NOT have to stand for nouns.
ALL other gmat pronouns must stand for nouns.

FIRST TYPE

It + is obvious + that Medellín will beat Nacional in Wednesday’s game.
(for any paisas who might be reading this --vamox medallo!)

It + has been said + that the moon is made of green cheese.

Johnny found it + counterintuitive + that the GMAT tests exceptions to rules just as often as it tests the rules themselves.

SECOND TYPE

It + is often difficult + to distinguish between a past-tense verb and a past participle.

The rain made it + quite challenging + to drive on the freeway.

THIRD TYPE

It + was my own brother + who committed the crime.


if you look at the examples you've given above, you will find that all of them conform exactly to the above templates.

also, if you have og12, check out #57.
there are four instances of "it".
the two instances of "it" that occur at the beginning of choices (present in choices (c) and (d)) fit the above templates, and so are ok even though they don't stand for nouns.
the other two instances of "it" (in choices (a) and (c)) do not fit the above templates, and so must stand for nouns; since there are no suitable nouns in those choices, those pronouns are incorrect.

did you mean that instances of 'it' mentioned in the blue underlined line above do not conform to patterns that you mentioned because they come in relative clause whereas the patterns you mentioned place 'it' in subject or object position of the main clause.
if above is not the case, please tell how did you conclude that instances of 'it' mentioned in blue underlined line were not legitimate
thank you

[RonPurewal]

did you mean that instances of 'it' mentioned in the blue underlined line above do not conform to patterns that you mentioned because they come in relative clause whereas the patterns you mentioned place 'it' in subject or object position of the main clause.

i don't really understand what you are asking here, but it seems that you are overcomplicating the issue.
this may sound like a dumb explanation, but those instances don't conform to the templates above because ... well, because they don't conform to the templates above.

basically, any instance of "it" that you see will either (a) have exactly the same form as one of the examples, or (b) NOT have one of those forms.
just look at the patterns, internalize them, and make the appropriate analogies. if you need mumbo-jumbo terms like "relative clause" to figure this out, that's not a good thing.

[vikram4689]

did you mean that instances of 'it' mentioned in the blue underlined line above do not conform to patterns that you mentioned because they come in relative clause whereas the patterns you mentioned place 'it' in subject or object position of the main clause.

i don't really understand what you are asking here, but it seems that you are overcomplicating the issue.
this may sound like a dumb explanation, but those instances don't conform to the templates above because ... well, because they don't conform to the templates above.

basically, any instance of "it" that you see will either (a) have exactly the same form as one of the examples, or (b) NOT have one of those forms.
just look at the patterns, internalize them, and make the appropriate analogies. if you need mumbo-jumbo terms like "relative clause" to figure this out, that's not a good thing.

my confusion stemmed from 2nd "it" that, to me, seems to follow "It + (TO BE verb) + NOUN + that/who + verb".

sorry for mentioning "it" of option a) in my last reply. discussing about option a), i would like to confirm one point - does option a) creates run-on sentence

[RonPurewal]

sorry for mentioning "it" of option a) in my last reply. discussing about option a), i would like to confirm one point - does option a) creates run-on sentence

option (a) is not a run-on sentence. in fact, while incorrect, that choice contains the same types of grammatical elements that appear in the correct answer (albeit in a slightly different order).

[vikram4689]

thanks, i realized that A is not run-on. actually i had felt so because subject in A is quite long and i some how missed the structure but when i replaced subject in A with a shorter subject, (say X), - X can hardly be said that it is their fault - it was quite clear that A is not run-on

somehow one query was missed. below is option c). my doubt is that "it" is identical to pattern "It + (TO BE verb) + NOUN + that/who + verb" but in your post this instance of "it" is mentioned as not confirming to the pattern and hence requiring an antecedent. am i overlooking some point ?

It can hardly be said that it is the fault of educators who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology

[RonPurewal]

my doubt is that "it" is identical to pattern "It + (TO BE verb) + NOUN + that/who + verb" but in your post this instance of "it" is mentioned as not confirming to the pattern and hence requiring an antecedent. am i overlooking some point ?

It can hardly be said that it is the fault of educators who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology

check out the template again -- those words don't conform to it.
if you just had "it was the teachers who VERBed", that would conform to the template.
if you have "it was the fault of the teachers...", then some noun must have been the teachers' fault.

[vikram4689]

if you just had "it was the teachers who VERBed", that would conform to the template.
if you have "it was the fault of the teachers...", then some noun must have been the teachers' fault.

can you please elaborate blue part. initially i considered 'teachers' and 'fault' to be equivalent in context of above pattern as both of them are 'nouns'. BUT, as per your comment, it seems that i am missing some meaning issue


one additional question - if a sentence contains 2 instances of "it", will it be correct if one of them does not stand for any noun (i.e.confirm to above rules) and other stand for a noun in sentence --- this question stemmed from the point that if there are 2 instances of same pronoun then they must refer to same thing, while-depressed-property-values-ca-t8523.html#p34785

[RonPurewal]

if you just had "it was the teachers who VERBed", that would conform to the template.
if you have "it was the fault of the teachers...", then some noun must have been the teachers' fault.

can you please elaborate blue part. initially i considered 'teachers' and 'fault' to be equivalent in context of above pattern as both of them are 'nouns'. BUT, as per your comment, it seems that i am missing some meaning issue

this would only be a valid interpretation if you could remove the modifier "of the teachers" while keeping the modifier that starts with "who". if you could do that, then the sentence would conform to the above template, with "fault" as the noun.
you can't remove that modifier, though. (try formulating the sentence in that way if you don't understand why not.)

here's an example in which you actually can remove a modifier in the manner you're suggesting:
it was the dean of students who decided to cancel school today.
here, you can remove "of students" and the resulting sentence still makes sense.

one additional question - if a sentence contains 2 instances of "it", will it be correct if one of them does not stand for any noun (i.e.confirm to above rules) and other stand for a noun in sentence --- this question stemmed from the point that if there are 2 instances of same pronoun then they must refer to same thing, while-depressed-property-values-ca-t8523.html#p34785

this is one of those issues that must be decided by the official problems themselves. i don't think i've seen a precedent in either direction.

[boncourage]

New techniques in thermal-scanning photography, a process that records radiation from surface areas,
d. make possible the study of the effects of calefaction, or warming, of a river in greater detail than it ever was before.

Hi Ron, "it" in D does not belong to those types "the only pronouns on the GMAT that don't have to stand for nouns" , and thus "it" requires an antecedent here.

So why "it" could not stand for the study of the effects of calefaction, or warming, of a river? Besides, I'm really confused whether "in greater detail" should be included in the antecedent "the study... of a river"...

Thanks for your kind help!

[thanghnvn]

Why B is wrong, Pls, help

if you look at (b) vs. (c), you'll notice that chunks of words are being moved around.
when that happens, you should try to pick the answer choice that leaves single thoughts together.

here, "in greater detail than ever before" is a single thought, so it should ideally be left in one piece. if that isn't possible, then at least "in greater detail" and "than ever before" should absolutely be as close to each other as possible (since neither of them makes any sense if they are separated too far).

if is clear that
if "more/-er" is close to "than" , the meaing is more clear.

this point is so natural and simple that we do not think it is.

[RonPurewal]

if is clear that
if "more/-er" is close to "than" , the meaing is more clear.

this point is so natural and simple that we do not think it is.

Well, actually, no. If you just stick those right next to each other, you might end up with the wrong meaning.

E.g.,
Sharon likes more music than Tanya does.
This sentence means that Sharon enjoys a wider variety of music. It implies nothing about which woman enjoys music to a greater degree.

If I follow this "point that is so natural and simple", I'll get Sharon likes music more than Tanya does, which is a completely different animal. Now, I'm saying that Sharon's enjoyment of music is more intense than Tanya's, and I'm not saying anything about variety.

--

By the way, thanghnvn, please stop inserting unnecessary commentary into your forum posts.
* Please don't mention that some fact is "mentioned in grammar books", unless you are actually citing a particular source.
* Please refrain from commenting on whether certain topics reflect "the true nature of the gmat".
* Please don't make unnecessary comments about how things are easy/simple/whatever. (In many cases, such as this one, you'll be wrong.)

Thank you in advance.

[divineacclivity]

What's wrong with option D?
thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

What's wrong with option D?
thanks in advance.

"It ever was before" has no counterpart in the comparison.

[divineacclivity]

thank you.

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.