Antecedent rule.

[pleaman]

Hi experts.

Could you help me to identify the right antecedent for "they"? Italian vintners - right? or wines?

"In an effort to reduce their inventories, Italian vintners have cut prices; their wines are priced to sell, and they do (sell)."

If rewrite sentence to "....; Italian vintners' wine are priced to sell, and Italian vintners do [sell]" will it be the correct one?

[Willy]

Hi experts.

Could you help me to identify the right antecedent for "they"? Italian vintners - right? or wines?

"In an effort to reduce their inventories, Italian vintners have cut prices; their wines are priced to sell, and they do (sell)."

If rewrite sentence to "....; Italian vintners' wine are priced to sell, and Italian vintners do [sell]" will it be the correct one?

'Wines' is the correct antecedent as Italian vintners (wine merchants) are not for sale. It will sound as if vintners are for sale. :)

[pleaman]

Hi experts.

Could you help me to identify the right antecedent for "they"? Italian vintners - right? or wines?

"In an effort to reduce their inventories, Italian vintners have cut prices; their wines are priced to sell, and they do (sell)."

If rewrite sentence to "....; Italian vintners' wine are priced to sell, and Italian vintners do [sell]" will it be the correct one?

'Wines' is the correct antecedent as Italian vintners (wine merchants) are not for sale. It will sound as if vintners are for sale. :)

I think tht wine can not sell, wines are sold by vintners.

[Willy]

I think tht wine can not sell, wines are sold by vintners.

I am sorry for not being able to explain you better, but I think this is not the intended meaning. BTW, Pay attention to following part and you will find your answer.

their wines are priced to sell, and they do (sell).

[mukesh.mulchandani]

It is the tense used that causes confusion. May be it will make it clear if you played with tense.

their wines were priced to sell, and they did

Or better yet take another verb...

their employees are paid to mop and they do

[mukesh.mulchandani]

I just realized that my example may not take the confusion away after all :)

[tim]

actually, i'm not sure what the confusion is to begin with! :) let us know if there are any further questions on this one..

[pleaman]

actually, i'm not sure what the confusion is to begin with! :) let us know if there are any further questions on this one..

Tim, who sell by the way?) wine or vintners? I believe last)

[tim]

wines. this is not up for debate. the GMAT thinks it is wines, so we must as well. if you don't like the fact that wines can sell, you just need to get used to the fact that the GMAT thinks they can..

[pleaman]

wines. this is not up for debate. the GMAT thionks it wines, so we must as well. if you don't like the fact that wines can sell, you just need to get used to the fact that the GMAT thinks they can..

Thank you. I actually can not understand the meaning, I only have to remember this example(

[tim]

unfortunately that's what has to be done sometimes. glad to see you have the right perspective on how to study this example..

[josefdong]

Dear tutors,

Does the "sell" here mean "be popular on the market"?(I checked from dictionary, "sell" has this meaning.) I think only if this meaning works, I can understand why "they" stands for "wines".

Besides, in this sentence, first two "their"s apparently stand for "vintners", and last "they" refers to wines. This kind of different references in they-their pronoun is accepted by GMAC. Can I interpret in this way: if repeated pronouns in a single sentence stand for different nouns and cause no ambiguity(maybe because of clear structure or common sense), then the sentence is acceptible ?

Need your ideas, thanks a lot!

[RonPurewal]

Dear tutors,

Does the "sell" here mean "be popular on the market"?(I checked from dictionary, "sell" has this meaning.) I think only if this meaning works, I can understand why "they" stands for "wines".

Yes.

Besides, in this sentence, first two "their"s apparently stand for "vintners", and last "they" refers to wines. This kind of different references in they-their pronoun is accepted by GMAC. Can I interpret in this way: if repeated pronouns in a single sentence stand for different nouns and cause no ambiguity(maybe because of clear structure or common sense), then the sentence is acceptible ?

Yes.

[amandat821]

hi, instructors,
i have a question about pronouns in this particular sentence.
i learned in Mgmat SC book that every "it" and "its" must refer to the same singular antecedent, every "they", "them", and "their" must refer to the same plural antecedent.

therefore,why "they" in this sentence does not refer to "italian vintners"? i came up one explanation, but i still doubt it.
because "they" is in a independent clause after a semicolon, "they" may not refer to the same plural antecedent to which first"their" refers.
however, "their" that is in the same clause with "they" refers to"italian vintners".
furthermore, if "they" refers to "italian vintners", i think this sentence still make semantic sense.

please tell me which part i am wrong.

thank you

[RonPurewal]

here's the best algorithm for making decisions about pronouns:

0/
what thing/person/animal/whatever SHOULD the pronoun stand for?
(step zero, because it shouldn't be a "step" at this point; from reading the original sentence, you should already understand ALL aspects of intended meaning)

1/
is there a noun for that thing/person/animal/whatever?
..... if not, the pronoun is wrong (unless it's one of the VERY FEW exceptions-- link here).
..... if so, go to step 2.

2/
do the pronoun and noun match (singular/singular or plural/plural)?

if the answers to both #1 and #2 are yes, the pronoun is fine.

if the book contains such unnecessary complexity, i'll go ahead and submit it for removal. the point here--as for EVERY major topic in SC--is to keep things simple.