Factory outlet stores, operated

[jjykim]

Factory outlet stores, operated by manufacturers, are usually located miles from downtown and regional shopping centers so as not directly to be competitive against department stores in the same trading area.

(A) so as not directly to be competitive against
(B) in order for them not to have direct competition with
(C) so that they do not compete directly with
(D) in order that they are not directly competitive against
(E) for the purpose of not competing directly with

The correct answer is C, but doesn't the pronoun 'they' get lost in the sentence? Couldn't one argue that the 'they' in answer choice C could refer to the shopping centers, the manufacturers, etc...?

[esledge]

A common misperception is that any nouns that match in number and precede the pronoun could be the antecedent. In truth, the structure of the sentence can clarify (or even dictate) the antecedent.

In choice (C), there is parallelism between two clauses: "Factory outlet stores...are located" so that "they do not compete."

The two verbs are parallel, with "factory outlet stores" the subject of the first, "they" the subject of the second. Thus, "they" refers to the stores.

In contrast, both "manufacturers" and "shopping centers" are the object of the preposition within a modifying phrase.

Take-away: The subject of the sentence makes a stronger candidate for antecedent status than other nouns, particularly when the pronoun is used as a subject, too.

By the way, "them" in choice (B) would be ambiguous. "Them" is not a subject, so we cannot infer that the antecedent is the subject "stores."

[shobujgmat]

Factory outlet stores, operated by manufacturers, are usually located miles from downtown and regional shopping centers so as not directly to be competitive against department stores in the same trading area.

(A) so as not directly to be competitive against
(B) in order for them not to have direct competition with
(C) so that they do not compete directly with
(D) in order that they are not directly competitive against
(E) for the purpose of not competing directly with

What is the wrong with : A,
i come to know that so as not to be hindered by is an idom
which one is correct : competitive with or competitive against
is in order that is a wrong idom

[RonPurewal]

Factory outlet stores, operated by manufacturers, are usually located miles from downtown and regional shopping centers so as not directly to be competitive against department stores in the same trading area.

(A) so as not directly to be competitive against
(B) in order for them not to have direct competition with
(C) so that they do not compete directly with
(D) in order that they are not directly competitive against
(E) for the purpose of not competing directly with

What is the wrong with : A,
i come to know that so as not to be hindered by is an idom
which one is correct : competitive with or competitive against
is in order that is a wrong idom

to compete or competition does indeed go with "with", although i've also seen it used with against. for instance, in most usage i've seen, one could say that athletes compete with other athletes, but also against other athletes.

i wouldn't judge that difference in usage, then, until we have more evidence on which to base the judgment.

this is one of those sentences that a native speaker of english will recognize at once to be "irretrievably awkward", although that awkwardness is a bit hard to pin down in this case.

* the placement of "directly" is incorrect. you wouldn't write "not directly to be competitive"; you'd write "not to be directly competitive". this is the case because "directly" is an adverb that modifies the adjective "competitive", so those two words should be placed together.

* "be competitive" is just not as good as "compete".

[RonPurewal]

in any case, the best thing to do in cases such as this one, where the difference comes down to awkwardness / usage / word placement, is to observe the way the test constructs correct sentences.
trying to parse out the exact rules behind the construction of such sentences is much less important, and will be much less successful, than modeling your choices after what you have seen to be "correct".
our brains don't run well on algorithms, after all; they run much better by imitation. it's much easier to observe correct sentences, and to choose future sentences that look like those ones, than to try to reduce everything to rules.

i'm not saying that you should ignore rules completely; i'm just saying that you should commit the form of the correct answer to memory. ideally, you should remember it in tandem with the incorrect answer you have in mind: "from now on, if i see something like this again, i know that ______ is better than ______."

[FRANCISCOR57]

A common misperception is that any nouns that match in number and precede the pronoun could be the antecedent. In truth, the structure of the sentence can clarify (or even dictate) the antecedent.

In choice (C), there is parallelism between two clauses: "Factory outlet stores...are located" so that "they do not compete."

The two verbs are parallel, with "factory outlet stores" the subject of the first, "they" the subject of the second. Thus, "they" refers to the stores.

In contrast, both "manufacturers" and "shopping centers" are the object of the preposition within a modifying phrase.

Take-away: The subject of the sentence makes a stronger candidate for antecedent status than other nouns, particularly when the pronoun is used as a subject, too.

By the way, "them" in choice (B) would be ambiguous. "Them" is not a subject, so we cannot infer that the antecedent is the subject "stores."

Hello,

Correct me if I am wrong, this is what you are saying that in this case

(Subject+Verb+Object --Parallel to--- Pronoun+Verb+Object)

the pronoun is not unclear no matter how many other nouns of the first clause match with the pronoun.

With that being said, how could we apply the same principle to the following?

"The fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants make the electricity THEY generate more expensive"

(The sentence above is part of the correct answer choice on one official question)

From the context, it is obvious that "THEY" refers to the nuclear plants, however, I believe this is not enough reason to go with this answer choice.

Would you say that "THEY" could be referring to costs rather than plants?

Could you please shed some light on this?

[RonPurewal]

Please search the forum for that problem, and post your question on the appropriate thread. Thanks.

If you find nothing, then create another thread"”"”but, in accordance with the forum rules, please post the entire text of the problem, including all answer choices.

[RonPurewal]

Also, when you re-post your question, you're going to need to clarify this:
I believe this is not enough reason to go with this answer choice.

I don't understand. You wrote that the pronoun is used correctly... but that you're still dissatisfied with the use of the pronoun?
Hmm. You may want to think through that issue again.
It's either 0 or 1, "off" or "on". Either the pronoun is used correctly or it isn't. There's no such thing as "correctly, but not correctly enough". (And, if you invent such a concept, you're going to make a lot of easy things much harder.)

[FRANCISCOR57]

Please search the forum for that problem, and post your question on the appropriate thread. Thanks.

If you find nothing, then create another thread"”"”but, in accordance with the forum rules, please post the entire text of the problem, including all answer choices.

I read this question in the OG so I don't know whether posting it here would be considered copyright infringement

[FRANCISCOR57]

Please search the forum for that problem, and post your question on the appropriate thread. Thanks.

If you find nothing, then create another thread"”"”but, in accordance with the forum rules, please post the entire text of the problem, including all answer choices.

I'm sorry I did not make myself clear, my question is:

How could we apply the principle (esledge's explanation) explained in this thread to this sentence?

For me, the pronoun "they" in this sentence does not have a clear antecedent (even though we can assume "they" refers to the plants)
Could you please explain?


This question is the number 107 of the SC set in the OG

[thanghnvn]

why E is wrong. the idiom in E is correct. E is wrong just because it is wordy.

pls,explain.

[RonPurewal]

This question is the number 107 of the SC set in the OG

Remember, the first step of any SC problem is to read the sentence like a normal reader——NOT like a student analyzing grammar. Read as though you were reading a book or magazine.

If you read #107 as though it were everyday reading, it's one hundred percent clear that "they" = nuclear plants. The entire second half is dedicated to describing additional costs incurred in operating nuclear plants, so it's plain that nuclear energy is more expensive.

[RonPurewal]

why E is wrong. the idiom in E is correct. E is wrong just because it is wordy.

pls,explain.

No.

First, the idiom is actually wrong. You do things with a certain purpose.

Second, "not competing..." isn't a purpose.
A purpose is an active intention. You're trying to DO something.
If this idea were phrased in an active way——i.e., with the purpose of avoiding competition with xxxx——then it would make sense.