SC: During the past decade, the labor market in France

[Guest]

During the past decade, the labor market in France has not been operating according to free market principles, but instead stifling functioning through its various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers.

A. principles, but instead stifling functioning through its various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers
B. principles, instead it has been functioning in a stifled manner as a result of various government regulations that restrict the hiring and firing of workers
C. principles, rather functioning despite being stifled as a result of government regulations that variously restrict worker hiring and firing
D. principles; the hiring and firing of workers is restricted there by various government regulations, its functioning being stifled
E. principles; instead, its functioning has been stifled by various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers


I am confused between D and E. The answer choice says that "its" in D lacks a clear antecedent, which I agree with. But, in answer choice E, "its" clearly and unambiguously refers to the "labor market." I'm having a hard time determining why its is ambiguous in D but not in E.

[esledge]

Pronoun antecedent clarity often relies on the structure of the sentence. Some cues are:

(1) Parallelism: "The labor market ...has not been operating" parallels "its functioning has been stifled." Thus, its = labor market.

(2) Process of elimination: In (E), there is no other singular noun that could be the antecedent. The following nouns are present: the labor market (singular), free market principles (plural), various government regulations (plural), and the hiring and firing (could be treated as singular despite the "and," just because the combination of these things is almost one cliche). But "hiring and firing" is part of a modifier of the object of the verb "has been stifled," while "its" is the modifier of the subject of that same verb. Thus, "its" cannot refer to hiring and firing.

(3) Logic: Who’s (or what’s) functioning has been stifled? The labor market’s.

[singh.ambesh]

I ruled D out because it is in passive voice.
B is in active voice..so I went for it.

how to distinguish whether use of passive voice is OK in a sentence ?

[singh.ambesh]

PLease reply

[ChrisB]

Hi Singh,

The GMAT prefers that we use the passive voice when doings so is necessary to maintain parallelism or clarity of meaning. Thus, the use of passive voice is a preference and not a rule. In this case, D is not incorrect because it uses the passive voice, but rather because of the improper use of its and the fact that the portion after the semicolon does not effectively stand alone as an independent clause.

In short, I recommend to my students to stay away from passive vs. active voice and look for other splits that are more prominent first. In this case, the pronoun issue is clearly more pronounced and is the first split I would attack.

Thanks,
Chris

[ivy]

(2) Process of elimination: In (E), there is no other singular noun that could be the antecedent. The following nouns are present: the labor market (singular), free market principles (plural), various government regulations (plural), and the hiring and firing (could be treated as singular despite the "and," just because the combination of these things is almost one cliche). But "hiring and firing" is part of a modifier of the object of the verb "has been stifled," while "its" is the modifier of the subject of that same verb. Thus, "its" cannot refer to hiring and firing.

Hello esledge,

Ain't nouns 'the past decade' and 'France' other singular nouns present in the problem statement? Can't 'its' in option E refer to 'the past decade' or 'France'? Does 'its' in option E has clear antecedent? If yes, how?

Thanks! :)

[tim]

the antecedent is clearly "market", because "decades" and "France" (and for that matter "principles") are inside prepositional phrases. it is almost certain that a pronoun outside a prepositional phrase will not reach into a prepositional phrase for an antecedent. exceptions to this are so rare (and obvious in context) that i would consider it safe to adopt this as a general operating principle for SC problems..

[krishnagmat]

During the past decade, the labor market in France has not been operating according

>> This talks about the past decade that is already finished. Is it not necessary for the sentence to be in the past tense or past perfect ? I guess it is not continuing currently. Please shed some light on this.

[jlucero]

Present perfect is acceptable here as "during the past decade" can include today and the previous 10 years. Nowhere in this sentence is it implied that these events have stopped (which would then require simple past).

[puttukoni8]

Pronoun antecedent clarity often relies on the structure of the sentence. Some cues are:

(1) Parallelism: "The labor market ...has not been operating" parallels "its functioning has been stifled." Thus, its = labor market.

(2) Process of elimination: In (E), there is no other singular noun that could be the antecedent. The following nouns are present: the labor market (singular), free market principles (plural), various government regulations (plural), and the hiring and firing (could be treated as singular despite the "and," just because the combination of these things is almost one cliche). But "hiring and firing" is part of a modifier of the object of the verb "has been stifled," while "its" is the modifier of the subject of that same verb. Thus, "its" cannot refer to hiring and firing.

(3) Logic: Who’s (or what’s) functioning has been stifled? The labor market’s.

Hi MGMAT,
Despite agreeing with what all is explained, I still can't digest the fact that -
In option E, semicolon is used => Two independent clauses , which can be separated and used INDEPENDENTLY.
So, If I split and use second sentence independently (sentence following the ';') -

"Instead, its functioning has been stifled by various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers."

I can't tell what is the antecedent of pronoun "it's"?
Plz help !

[tim]

Yes you can. If you are honest with yourself and paying attention to the sentence, you will *always* be able to tell what a pronoun is *supposed* to represent. The only thing you have to do then in order to verify that the pronoun rules are satisfied is to find that antecedent somewhere in the sentence. As for the semicolon issue, I have found that in the vast majority of cases, when the GMAT includes a pronoun behind a semicolon it will refer to an antecedent in the first half of the sentence. This is perhaps the most important reason why there can't simply be a period where the semicolon is--to do so would be to remove the antecedent from the sentence in which the pronoun appears.

[TanmayA522]

Hi Instructors,

Here's my doubt for option E:

Option E says -

E. principles; instead, its functioning has been stifled by various government regulations restricting the hiring and firing of workers

Questions -

1) What part of speech is 'restricting' here?
2) Is the part after the semi colon grammatically correct? Isn't there an issue with parallelism here - 'restricting' is not parallel with stifled? Wouldn't the following be correct -

E. principles; instead, its functioning has been stifled by various government regulations that restrict/have restricted the hiring and firing of workers (Replacing restricting with either of the two options in bold)


I might be missing something here. Kindly enlighten me :)
Thanks