Sentence Correction

Rejecting the apprenticeship model of training social workers in philanthropic agencies, twentieth-centuary reformer Edith Abbott was convinced of social work education belonging in the university so that students could be offered a broad range of courses dealing with social issues.

a. of social work education belonging in the university so that
b. that social work education should be in the university, and that
c. about the importance of social work education belonging in the university while
d. that social work education belonged in the university, where
e. of the necessity of social work education being in the university and.

WhyD why notB

Please explain

The construction of B is as follows: "Edith Abbott was convinced THAT social work education should be in the university, and THAT students could be offered a broad range of courses..." More generically, if we see "SUBJECT was convinced THAT x and THAT y," we can assume that our subject is convinced of two discrete things.

B, in essence, is saying that Edith Abbott was convinced that social work education should be in the university. And Edith Abbott was also convinced that students could be offered a broad range of courses. So we have to ask ourselves if this is the meaning the author of the sentence wishes to convey. Is Edith Abbott really convinced of two unrelated phenomena? (And why should anyone have to convince themselves that students can be offered a broad range of courses?)

Or is it more logical to say, as D does, that Edith Abbott was convinced that social work education belonged in the university, WHERE students can take a broad range of courses. The meaning of D is more logical.

Hi David ,

Thanks for your reply.

What I understand is , because of COMMA we can eliminate option B right?

Please advise and correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks

Hi David ,

Thanks for your reply.

What I understand is , because of COMMA we can eliminate option B right?

Please advise and correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks

I agree with you that the comma in B is inappropriate, but in general, I'd be hesitant to eliminate an answer choice solely on the basis of an inappropriate comma. When evaluating sentences on the GMAT, we need to prioritize what issues we're going to focus on. I promise you that illogical meaning is an issue you will encounter over and over again in incorrect answer choices. And though you might see some incorrect comma usage, (perhaps when selecting between THAT vs WHICH) those sentences will likely have other problems as well.

An introductory VERBIng modifier must serve to express an action that is DIRECTLY LINKED to the action in following clause.
B: Rejecting the apprenticeship model of training social workers in philanthropic agencies, twentieth-century reformer Edith Abbott was convinced that social work education should be in the university, and that students could be offered a broad range of courses dealing with social issues.
Here, the introductory VERBing modifier serves to modify the ENTIRE CLAUSE IN RED.
Conveyed meaning:
Rejecting the apprenticeship model of training social workers in philanthropic agencies, twentieth-century reformer Edith Abbott was convinced...that students could be offered a broad range of courses.
This construction is illogical.
While the VERBing modifier is about training SOCIAL WORKERS, the clause in blue is about STUDENTS.
Since the VERBing modifier and the clause in blue are about two different things, eliminate B.

Hi Mitch,

Just wanted to confirm

So you mean that "Edith Abbott" is doing an action that is stated VERB-ing clause in the starting of sentence.

Edith is rejecting the X of social workers so the part after comma should focus on social workers. Also the "where the student could be offered X" is serving just as to describe something (University).

Right?


I am facing issue with these kind of problems. Can you please suggest me how to improve? Should I focus on any grammar topic like modifiers for improving on these questions?

Thanks & Regards,
Vishal Chopra

vishalwin wrote:Hi Mitch,

Just wanted to confirm

So you mean that "Edith Abbott" is doing an action that is stated VERB-ing clause in the starting of sentence.

Edith is rejecting the X of social workers so the part after comma should focus on social workers. Also the "where the student could be offered X" is serving just as to describe something (University).

Right?

Your understanding seems correct.

Should I focus on any grammar topic like modifiers for improving on these questions?

Thanks & Regards,
Vishal Chopra

Study a topic such as modifiers.
Practice answering SCs that test this topic.
Once you feel that you have mastered this topic, repeat the process with another topic.

Once you have completed studying all of the individual topics -- modifiers, parallelism, subject-verb agreement, etc. -- practice answering random SCs.

Hi Experts ,

We can also eliminate option B , because two back to THAT CLAUSE is inappropriate in GMAT right?

Please confirm.

Many thanks in advance.

Kavin

Needgmat wrote:Hi Experts ,

We can also eliminate option B , because two back to THAT CLAUSE is inappropriate in GMAT right?

Please confirm.

Many thanks in advance.

Kavin

I wouldn't make this kind of sweeping generalization. What's more important is whether the given construction is logical. One could hypothetically believe that x and that y. But in this case B is suggesting that Edith Abbott was convinced that social work education should be in the university. And she was also convinced of this other thing - that students could be offered a broad range of courses. It's more logical to connect the ideas - she's convinced that social work education should be in the university, where students can be offered a broad range of courses.

Needgmat wrote:Hi Experts ,

We can also eliminate option B , because two back to THAT CLAUSE is inappropriate in GMAT right?

Please confirm.

Many thanks in advance.

Kavin

Edith Abbott was convinced that social work education should be in the university and that students could be offered a broad range of courses.
The structure here is as follows:
X was convinced that Y and that Z.
This structure is perfectly fine.
An OA with an analogous structure:
Records indicate that young Athenian women collaborated to weave a new woolen robe and that this robe depicted scenes of a battle.