By applying optimization techniques commonly used to plan

[MithunS889]

This questions is from Manhattan CAT. There is a very old post for the same question, but that is unrelated to my question. Therefore, creating a new thread.

In the question below, the word 'its' is ambiguous. Shouldn't the correct answer fix this issue? The correct answer provided is 'b', which doesn't resolve this error.


By applying optimization techniques commonly used to plan operations, it is possible to determine how much effort ought to be devoted to each of a company’s products in order to meet its goals in both the short and long terms.


a)it is possible to determine how much effort ought to be devoted to each of a company’s products in order to meet its goals in both the short and long terms

b)a company’s managers can determine how much effort should be dedicated to each of the company’s products in order to meet its short and long term goals

c)it can be determined by company managers how much effort ought to be devoted to each of the company’s products in order to meet its goals, both short and long term

d)it may be possible for company managers to determine how much effort should be dedicated to each of these products in order to meet the company’s short and long term goals

e)managers at a company can determine how much effort ought to be dedicated to each of these products in order to meet the company’s goals in both the short and long term

[RonPurewal]

In the question below, the word 'its' is ambiguous.

no, it isn't.

the sentence mentions only one thing--the company--that could possibly have "short- and long-term goals".

[ZihaoJ864]

In the question below, the word 'its' is ambiguous.

no, it isn't.

the sentence mentions only one thing--the company--that could possibly have "short- and long-term goals".

but there is no "company" in the sentence, only "company's"........you have explained other pronoun questions in this way to us.

[Chelsey Cooley]

That's actually a change in how we think about pronouns. We used to teach a rule called 'possessive poison', which claimed that pronouns couldn't have possessives as their antecedents. But that doesn't seem to be a rule the GMAT considers important, and it's sometimes 'violated' in correct answers - which makes it a pretty lousy rule. In general, it's best not to worry too much about pronoun ambiguity as long as there's some logical antecedent in the sentence that agrees in number, and as long as there are any other more obvious splits you can use.

[TahmazR14]

I also concluded that A can't be correct because "company's" can't be a proper antecedent.