EP2620 wrote:
Thanks for the explanation on the which-hunt,
GMATNinja!
I am clear on meanings of options B, C and D, thanks to the explanations posted by you and many others.
However, I seem to be struggling with options A and E. Option A: where the household incomes of 49 percent of them are
Q 1: In this sentence, why can't 'them' refer to the girls from the girls' team?
In the following similarly constructed sentences:
Similar to option A: At New Mexico,
Mr. Smith's basketball team has become a path to college for some and a source of pride for a community
where posters of him are found on all apartment buildings.
Similar to option E: At New Mexico,
Mr. Smith's basketball team has become a path to college for some and a source of pride for a community
in which autographs of him have been widely circulated
Q 1.1: Can't we infer that him refers to Mr. Smith?
Q 1.1.1: If no, why not?
Q 1.1.2: If yes, what is the difference between these sentences and the original question?
Q 1.2: Is there something else we can use to reject these 2 options?
Q 1.3: Would there have been a change in meaning if the original sentence had '
the community where...' instead of '
a community where...'?
Instead of thinking about what may or may not be acceptable grammatically here, consider the logic of the sentence if we assume that "them" refers to the girls on the basketball team.
In essence, we'd be saying that the girls' basketball team has become a source of pride to a community where 49% of the households of those same girls are below the poverty level. First, if it's a normal basketball team, half the roster would mean 6 or 7 kids. Would any community define itself by the income level of 6 or 7 households that happen to have a kid on the basketball team? Also, if the team's success is offsetting some other perceived community-wide failure, it would be very strange if that perceived failure were also coming from the very team that was the source of community pride, wouldn't it?
It would be far more logical to say that the basketball team's success is offsetting the grim reality that 49% of households in the community
overall are struggling with poverty.
In other words: sure, "them" could theoretically refer to "girls," but if it does, we get a sentence that makes no sense! Your example, on the other hand, seems perfectly logical -- Mr. Smith is the only person mentioned in the sentence, so "him" must refer to this guy. Also, while in most places the autograph of a high school basketball coach wouldn't be in high demand, it's not fundamentally illogical for Mr. Smith to be a local celebrity. Who else are basketball fans in New Mexico supposed to root for?
The takeaway: don't spend much energy agonizing over whether a non-possessive pronoun can refer to a possessive antecedent. It's rare, but, as with many constructions, there's no ironclad rule forbidding it. Instead, when there's doubt about a rule, rely on meaning, logic, and clarity instead, since those elements always matter.
I hope that helps!