Pronoun Issues

[chitrangada.maitra]

Although Hitler's army entered France with far more supplies than for any previous campaign, it had provisions for only hundred days.

Source: The sentence is similar to one in verbal review #98, pg 314

I could not understand how the use of 'it' is acceptable here. According to the SC guide, possessive nouns (Hitler's army) can serve as antecedents only to possessive pronouns.

Thanks,

[gokul_nair1984]

Although Hitler's army entered France with far more supplies than for any previous campaign, it had provisions for only hundred days.

If you analyze the meaning , this should make sense.

The "it" refers to the army, which is a collective noun. The "it" will refer to the subject of the sentence.

On the contrary , if it were to refer an object ( France, in this case), that is where there would be a structural or grammatical problem.

eg: Although Hitler's army entered France with far more supplies than for any previous campaign, it was a country that was perpetually hit by floods.---Here "it" incorrectly refers to the object(France).
Another example:

The students' work improved over the course of the semester, and the students should be commended for it. - even in this case , the "it" refers to work.

There is no need for any object pronoun to refer the possessive noun.

Take for instance the Jose example:

Jose's room is messy so his mom calls him a pig.

In this case the possessive pronoun refers the possessive noun. ie; his refers to Jose. However, the him(Object pronoun) does not refer to the possessive noun, albeit , it seems implicit.So, here we replace him with Jose.

[chitrangada.maitra]

I'm quoting a section from Ron's explanation on the subject here:

"in any case, the rule is:
you can't use a NON-possessive pronoun to stand for a possessive noun.
that's it.
note that ALL THREE other combinations -- possessive pronoun for possessive noun, non-possessive pronoun for non-possessive noun, and possessive pronoun for non-possessive noun -- are okay. ONLY the aforementioned combination is ruled out."

link: agatha-christie-sc-problem-from-cat-2-t9229.html

Contextually, what you said makes sense but the sentence flouts at-least my understanding of possessive poison rule.

However, I don't think your Jose example flouts the rule

Jose's room is messy so his mom calls him a pig.
Its a case of possessive pronoun for possessive noun.

[gokul_nair1984]

Here's another example of an official problem:

Among the objects found in the excavated temple were small terra-cotta effigies left by supplicants who were either asking the goddess Bona Dea's aid in healing physical and mental ills or thanking her for such help. ---
Non Possessive Pronoun(Object) + Possessive noun combination.


Few more follow suit:
[b] Frances Wright’s book on America contrasted the republicanism of the United States with what she saw as the aristocratic and corrupt institutions of England. [Pronoun "she" refers to "Frances Wright's" but in context she will refer to Frances]

Joplin’s faith in his opera "Tremonisha" was unshakable; in 1911 he published the score at his own expense and decided to stage the work himself. [Pronoun "he" refers to "Joplin's faith" but in context should refer to Joplin himself]

On stage, the force of Carrick’s personality and the vividness of his acting disguised the fact that he was, as his surviving velvet suit shows, a short man. [Pronoun "he" refers to "Carrick's personality" but in context should refer to Carrick]

All of the aforementioned examples break your Rule of Possessive Poison.


Most importantly, pronoun ambuguity is not an absolute rule. So that takes care of the GMAT negation.

Another one, which is wrong as per MGMAT. They say that "their" is ambiguous.

The attorney argued that students who were denied the use of school facilities for political activities had lost their right of free assembly.
---MGMAT claims this as invalid because "their" can refer to students, facilities or political activities and hence has no clear antecedent. But if you actually look at the meaning of the sentence, their can refer to nothing but Students.How can political activities or facilities lose their right? Try eliminating the middlemen and see for yourself.

I also do not think that we would have to eliminate wrong answers solely based on pronoun ambiguity or according to the rule that you stated above(I mean blindly negate them because of the rule Per Se)


Also, I do agree that the Possessive Noun+ Possessive Pronoun combination is generally preferred but there do are exceptions, as we see.On a different note, when we see such
(Supposedly wrong construction as per MGMAT) formats on OG questions, we can safely assume that they(Test Makers) should be right on this front. (Unless, of course GMAC shifts posts!)

Therefore,A subject or object pronoun could refer to a possesive noun.So basically, you run the risk of falling into this trap immediately or else you closely evaluate other plausible errors and finally when nothing else appears red, apply the posion rule.

PS: I also do not understand how can her be both a possessive and an object pronoun as per MGMAT SC. It should read hers as possessive, her as object as she as subject.I have also not seen this Rule(The possessive poison one) mentioned anywhere apart from in MGMAT.If such a rule exists, then it should be universal and ubiquitous.

Please correct me , if all of this sounds wrong.

[RonPurewal]

Although Hitler's army entered France with far more supplies than for any previous campaign, it had provisions for only hundred days.

Source: The sentence is similar to one in verbal review #98, pg 314

I could not understand how the use of 'it' is acceptable here. According to the SC guide, possessive nouns (Hitler's army) can serve as antecedents only to possessive pronouns.

Thanks,

"it" refers to "army", which is not a possessive noun. (the army, not hitler, had the provisions.)
problem solved.

--

by the way, this "possessive poison" rule is much more trouble than it's probably worth.
you can occasionally use it to eliminate a choice here and there, but it has so far been decisive in a grand total of ... wait for it ... ZERO official problems.
none.
ever.

furthermore, the newer edition of the OG verbal supplement doesn't even posit this rule anymore!
compare the answer key for #86 in the 1st edition OG verbal supplement (the only place where this rule has ever been mentioned in an official publication) to that for #81 in the 2nd edition (in which all traces of this "rule" have mysteriously disappeared from the explanation).

[chitrangada.maitra]

Thanks,

I will gladly bury that rule!

[mschwrtz]

Sounds good.