Prnoun Question Is IT ambigious

[viveksunder.vs]

Japan's abundant rainfall and the typically mild temperature throughout most of the country have produced a lush vegetation cover and, despite the mountainous terrain and generally poor soils, it has made possible the raising of a variety of crops.

A. it has made possible the raising of
B. has made possible fro them to raise
C. have made it possible to raise
D. have made it possible for raising
E. thus making it possible for them to raise.

What exactly is IT referring to?

[raghava_bharadwaj]

What is the OA ?
My pick would be C.
It refers to " raise variety of crops"

[RonPurewal]

the correct answer is definitely (c).

only (c) and (d) contain a verb that is properly parallel to "have produced", and choice (d) contains the unidiomatic "possible for ___ing" while (c) contains the correct version, "possible to (infinitive)".

--

this is a special idiomatic construction in which the "it" actually doesn't have to stand for anything.
i posted about that construction on this thread; go have a look.
yes, i know, exceptions to rules are not fun. but "it" is a rogue pronoun this way; there are just a handful of constructions in which it doesn't have to stand for anything.

[viveksunder.vs]

Thanks Ron - Owe you big time ma friend!

[RonPurewal]

Thanks Ron - Owe you big time ma friend!

you're welcome.

[523128572]

the correct answer is definitely (c).

only (c) and (d) contain a verb that is properly parallel to "have produced", and choice (d) contains the unidiomatic "possible for ___ing" while (c) contains the correct version, "possible to (infinitive)".

--

this is a special idiomatic construction in which the "it" actually doesn't have to stand for anything.
i posted about that construction on this thread; go have a look.
yes, i know, exceptions to rules are not fun. but "it" is a rogue pronoun this way; there are just a handful of constructions in which it doesn't have to stand for anything.

but RON, in manhattan there are examples:
Wrong:Earl walked to school,AND later ate his lunch.
Right:Earl walked to schoolAND later ate his lunch.
Right:Earl walked to school,AND HE later ate his lunch.
and the book says that Either eliminate the comma oradd asubject to the second verb, creating asecond mainclause.and in the above example:Japan's rainfall and the ... temperatures... have produced ... and, ..., have made it ...,violates this rule. i am quite confused, and we are just trying to find a better choice,aren't we?

[RonPurewal]

the correct answer is definitely (c).

only (c) and (d) contain a verb that is properly parallel to "have produced", and choice (d) contains the unidiomatic "possible for ___ing" while (c) contains the correct version, "possible to (infinitive)".

--

this is a special idiomatic construction in which the "it" actually doesn't have to stand for anything.
i posted about that construction on this thread; go have a look.
yes, i know, exceptions to rules are not fun. but "it" is a rogue pronoun this way; there are just a handful of constructions in which it doesn't have to stand for anything.

but RON, in manhattan there are examples:
Wrong:Earl walked to school,AND later ate his lunch.
Right:Earl walked to schoolAND later ate his lunch.
Right:Earl walked to school,AND HE later ate his lunch.
and the book says that Either eliminate the comma oradd asubject to the second verb, creating asecond mainclause.and in the above example:Japan's rainfall and the ... temperatures... have produced ... and, ..., have made it ...,violates this rule. i am quite confused, and we are just trying to find a better choice,aren't we?

those commas belong to the modifier, not to the core sentence.

if you remove the modifier, you have to remove the commas along with it.

[523128572]

the correct answer is definitely (c).

only (c) and (d) contain a verb that is properly parallel to "have produced", and choice (d) contains the unidiomatic "possible for ___ing" while (c) contains the correct version, "possible to (infinitive)".

--

this is a special idiomatic construction in which the "it" actually doesn't have to stand for anything.
i posted about that construction on this thread; go have a look.
yes, i know, exceptions to rules are not fun. but "it" is a rogue pronoun this way; there are just a handful of constructions in which it doesn't have to stand for anything.

but RON, in manhattan there are examples:
Wrong:Earl walked to school,AND later ate his lunch.
Right:Earl walked to schoolAND later ate his lunch.
Right:Earl walked to school,AND HE later ate his lunch.
and the book says that Either eliminate the comma oradd asubject to the second verb, creating asecond mainclause.and in the above example:Japan's rainfall and the ... temperatures... have produced ... and, ..., have made it ...,violates this rule. i am quite confused, and we are just trying to find a better choice,aren't we?

those commas belong to the modifier, not to the core sentence.

if you remove the modifier, you have to remove the commas along with it.

get it !thanx a lot!!

[523128572]

the correct answer is definitely (c).

only (c) and (d) contain a verb that is properly parallel to "have produced", and choice (d) contains the unidiomatic "possible for ___ing" while (c) contains the correct version, "possible to (infinitive)".

--

this is a special idiomatic construction in which the "it" actually doesn't have to stand for anything.
i posted about that construction on this thread; go have a look.
yes, i know, exceptions to rules are not fun. but "it" is a rogue pronoun this way; there are just a handful of constructions in which it doesn't have to stand for anything.

but RON, in manhattan there are examples:
Wrong:Earl walked to school,AND later ate his lunch.
Right:Earl walked to schoolAND later ate his lunch.
Right:Earl walked to school,AND HE later ate his lunch.
and the book says that Either eliminate the comma oradd asubject to the second verb, creating asecond mainclause.and in the above example:Japan's rainfall and the ... temperatures... have produced ... and, ..., have made it ...,violates this rule. i am quite confused, and we are just trying to find a better choice,aren't we?

those commas belong to the modifier, not to the core sentence.

if you remove the modifier, you have to remove the commas along with it.

RON,i have another question about "also":

Scientists have recently discovered that the ultrathin, layered construction of a butterfly’s wings, the same as the one making some butterflies shimmer via the phenomenon of iridescence, are enabling the insect to control how much heat energy is absorbed by its wings and how much is reflected away.

A.wings, the same as the one making some butterflies shimmer via the phenomenon of iridescence, are enabling

B. wings, which is the same one that makes some butterflies shimmer via the phenomenon of iridescence, that also enables

C.wings is the same as the one that makes some butterflies shimmer via the phenomenon of iridescence, enabling

D. wings"”the same construction that makes some butterflies shimmer via the phenomenon of iridescence"”also enables

E.wings"”of the same construction that makes some butterflies shimmer via the phenomenon of iridescence"”also enable
OA:D
i want to ask you, ron, why "also" is used before enables?can i understand like this:enables can't be gramtically paralleled with makes some butterflies....,but the two verbs are paralleled in the meaning. so we use also here to adress the parallelism of meaning. is this right, ron? hope for your reply

[RonPurewal]

i want to ask you, ron, why "also" is used before enables?can i understand like this:enables can't be gramtically paralleled with makes some butterflies....,but the two verbs are paralleled in the meaning. so we use also here to adress the parallelism of meaning. is this right, ron? hope for your reply

first off, don't do this -- i.e., don't post a new problem in a thread dedicated to another problem.
i'll answer this post, this one time, but from now on please follow the forum rules and post separate problems in separate threads.

--

i think you have the right idea here, but i am a bit chary of using the word "parallelism" to describe anything that isn't actually a parallel structure.

the idea is, basically, that the word "also" just indicates that the author/speaker sees two things in the same kind of way, or as reinforcing each other, etc.
here, for instance, the sentence first describes one cool thing about the construction of a butterfly's wings... and then it puts "also" in front of a second cool thing about the construction of a butterfly's wings.

the word "also" is just an adverb, so it has no effect on the grammar of the sentence. so, basically, this meaning is all you really have to know about it.

[mayankmalik01]

Hi Ron,

I have a small question.The modifier,'despite the mountains terrain and generally poor soils', is referring to what part of the sentence? and how ?

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

I have a small question.The modifier,'despite the mountains terrain and generally poor soils', is referring to what part of the sentence? and how ?

It relates to the entire action that follows it.

In the following two examples, "in 1982" similarly describes the entire action that follows:
In 1982, I graduated from high school.
As a child Joe rose through the ranks of the Boy Scouts and, in 1982, achieved the rank of Eagle Scout.

[RonPurewal]

and how ?

Provided you know what "despite" means, this part should be quite clear from context.

[Navneet]

Hi Ron,
Could "it" in option C refer to - "to raise a variety of crops".

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,
Could "it" in option C refer to - "to raise a variety of crops".

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p49622

DO NOT try to assign the "it" in these constructions. just remember them as special exceptions.