Pronoun Issues

[mcmebk]

Hi

Can anyone pls let know whether a,b,d & e all are wrong because 'it' is used to refer plural 'two local phone companies and one long-distance provider'.

"it" actually refers to "Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company" in these instances, although these constructions are still wrong because they don't convey the right meaning.
the intended meaning is that the Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company would be broken up into these entities, so the presence of the word "into" is important.

In place of 'it' we should say 'there would be two local phone companies and one long-distance provider."

this is not much better; it still fails to convey the meaning that these entities were actually going to be created by the breakup of the Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company.
if the wording is just "there would be ...", it seems to suggest that the Nippon company would simply be disbanded, and that these entities would arise on their own to take its place -- or that these entities already existed, and would be the only remaining companies in the field after the Nippon company was disbanded.

Dear Ron

The meaning differentiation between "be" and "into" sounds too subtle, especially to non-native speakers such as myself, I wonder if this is indeed what this question is intended to test for.

As for pronoun ambiguity, I have skimmed through all the relative posts where you mentioned that it should not be used as an absolute rule or criteria, unless there are splits among wrong and right answers, do you think this might be indeed one of those cases?

When I looked into the options even closer, the "it..."structure in A,B,D are parallel with the first half the sentence, I think you did mention that in cases like this, the pronoun's antecedents are the nouns that are in the parallel structure, meaning "it" represents "a government advisory committee" in A, "The break up" in B and D.

Please kindly correct me if my thoughts pattern is wrong, but this is basically how I eliminated the wrong options.

Thank you, your big fan.

[RonPurewal]

The meaning differentiation between "be" and "into" sounds too subtle, especially to non-native speakers such as myself, I wonder if this is indeed what this question is intended to test for.

probably too subtle to pick out at random, yes. but, since you can compare answer choices, it's reasonable to expect you to make this distinction.

in other words:
* should you be able to point this kind of thing out as you read through the sentence?
probably not (unless you're a professional editor).
* if you see some answer choices with "it woud be..." and some answer choices with "into...", should you be able to judge which is better?
yes.

As for pronoun ambiguity, I have skimmed through all the relative posts where you mentioned that it should not be used as an absolute rule or criteria, unless there are splits among wrong and right answers, do you think this might be indeed one of those cases?

pronoun ambiguity has about a 100:1 ratio of potential trouble : potential benefit. don't use it; it is much more likely to confuse (or even mislead) than to help.

[gauravtyagigmat]

In option B,D,E
is construction "Called for by a government advisory committee" correct?

I feel "for by " is also incorrect.It should be called by government

[tim]

There is nothing wrong with "called for". And if something is called for, that action is usually done BY someone or something (in this case the government).

[Tadashi]

Hi Ron
2 questions. hope you can help me.
(1) in A,
A. In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the largest telephone company in the world, so it would be

May i say it refers to "the breakup" ?
I just want to know in the structure "a of b, it/they" ， what it/they refers to? a or b?

I think it/they can only refer to a.
am I right?

(2) sorry , i can not find the post in which you told me about the use of the structure "there be". would you like to provide me with that link or copy and paste the use of that structure?

Thank you very much indeed!
Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron
2 questions. hope you can help me.
(1) in A,
A. In Japan, a government advisory committee called for the breakup of Nippon Telephone and Telegraph Company, the largest telephone company in the world, so it would be

May i say it refers to "the breakup" ?
I just want to know in the structure "a of b, it/they" ， what it/they refers to? a or b?

In this context, it's intended to refer to the telephone company, so it refers to the telephone company.
(That doesn't really work, though, because, after the breakup, that single company won't exist anymore.)

Don't complicate pronoun issues. If you can find a sensible noun for a pronoun, then the pronoun is fine.

e.g.,

I took a photograph of the parking spot, so that I could find it more easily upon my return.
("it" = parking spot)

I took a photograph of the parking spot, and then stored it on my computer in case I lost my phone.
("it" = photograph)

[RonPurewal]

(2) sorry , i can not find the post in which you told me about the use of the structure "there be". would you like to provide me with that link or copy and paste the use of that structure?

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you are talking about"”and these words don't seem to appear anywhere in this problem.

[Tadashi]

Thanks for your explanation and consideration!
Tadashi

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[eggpain24]

Hi，Ron

I got two issues here

1. X and Y joint by "and" should be viewed as “compounded noun”
I am not sure whether this compounded noun can be seen as only “plural” （or "singular“ is fine？）

2. in choice E

is is wrong for illogical meaning？
If we interpreted it literally → the breakup was to be companies （illogical）

Thank you！

[rustom.hakimiyan]

In ABD, "so" is used as a coordinating conjunction, joining two independent clauses. However, the second half of the sentence is clearly dependent on the first half, so a conjunction of this type is inappropriate. As for E, there is a problem with the word "be", but the more obvious problem is that it sounds like Japan is the world's largest telephone company..

Hi Tim,

I wasn't aware that "so" functions as a coordinating conjunction, similar to but, yet, although etc.

Can you confirm that "so" does the same thing as "but/yet" in every single case? I always thought that "so" was a rather superfluous word.

Thanks.

[tim]

I cannot confirm that ANYTHING happens "in every single case", but yes the word "so" can serve as a coordinating conjunction, as I've already mentioned.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

I cannot confirm that ANYTHING happens "in every single case", but yes the word "so" can serve as a coordinating conjunction, as I've already mentioned.

Understood. Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

excellent.

[gmatkiller_24]

Hi，Ron

I got two issues here

1. X and Y joint by "and" should be viewed as “compounded noun”
I am not sure whether this compounded noun can be seen as only “plural” （or "singular“ is fine？）

2. in choice E

is is wrong for illogical meaning？
If we interpreted it literally → the breakup was to be companies （illogical）

Thank you！

same doubt here.

Can you further clarify this one, Ron?

Thank you!