Don’t lose your progress!

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Up to 90+ points GMAT score improvement guarantee

The best guarantee you’ll find

Our Premium and Ultimate plans guarantee up to 90+ points score increase or your money back.

Master each section of the test

Comprehensive GMAT prep

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Schedule-free studying

Learn on the go

Study whenever and wherever you want with our iOS and Android mobile apps.

The most effective way to study

Personalized GMAT prep, just for you!

Adaptive learning technology focuses on your academic weaknesses.

Sentence Correction: Relative Clauses - Choosing the Correct Relative Pronoun

In the panopticon, a unique type of prison designed by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham in 1785, cells were arranged around a central observatory, where the occupier could not be seen by the incarcerated prisoners.

Incorrect.

This answer choice is stylistically flawed. The phrase where the occupier is ambiguous, since it is not clear who the occupier is - the occupier of a cell or the occupier of the central observatory?

In addition, the use of the phrase incarcerated prisoners is redundant, as prisoners repeats the meaning of the incarcerated.

Incorrect.

While this answer choice corrects the original ambiguity and redundancy, it creates a new stylistic flaw. The phrases the occupier of which and was not able to be seen are both wordy and redundant.

Look for an answer choice that is more concise.

Incorrect.

While this answer choice corrects the original redundancy, it is illogical. The phrase having no ability for the occupier to see cannot refer to anything in the sentence, because nothing previously mentioned in the main clause can logically have the ability to see or not to see (the panopticon, cells, observatory).

Furthermore, this answer choices reverses the original meaning of the sentence, by noting the occupier cannot see the prisoners, whereas in the original sentence the prisoners are the ones who cannot see the occupier.

Incorrect.

While this answer choice corrects the original redundancy, it repeats the original ambiguity: it is not clear who the occupier is - the occupier of a cell or the occupier of the central observatory? 

Furthermore, this answer choice creates another stylistic flaw. The use of the preposition with is awkward and confusing, since it is not clear who or what with refers to.

Well done!

This answer choice corrects the original ambiguity by changing where the occupier to whose occupier. Using the possessive relative pronoun whose makes it clear that the occupier is the occupier of the observatory, and not the occupier of one of the cells.

Furthermore, this answer choice corrects the original redundancy by replacing the redundant phrase incarcerated prisoners with the more concise the incarcerated.

where the occupier could not be seen by the incarcerated prisoners
whose occupier could not be seen by the incarcerated
the occupier of which was not able to be seen by the incarcerated
having no ability for the occupier to see the prisoners
with no possibility of the occupier being seen by the prisoners