4meonly wrote:Having been bombed for fifty-seven nights in a row, the Blitz and the refusal to surrender London after it took on almost mythic significance as evidence of British citizens’ ability to resist the will of Hitler and Nazi Germany.

* the Blitz and the refusal to surrender London after it took on
* London’s Blitz and the refusal to surrender took after
* the Blitz and the refusal of the city of London took over
* London’s refusal to surrender after the Blitz took on
* London’s refusal to surrender after the Blitz took up

OA later

D

Took on is idiomatic
Object of mythic significance is "London's refusal"

Only D meets the above 2 criteria

Having been bombed for fifty-seven nights in a row, the Blitz and the refusal to surrender London after it took on almost mythic significance as evidence of British citizens’ ability to resist the will of Hitler and Nazi Germany.

* the Blitz and the refusal to surrender London after it took on
* London’s Blitz and the refusal to surrender took after
* the Blitz and the refusal of the city of London took over
* London’s refusal to surrender after the Blitz took on
* London’s refusal to surrender after the Blitz took up

Having been bombed for fifty-seven nights in a row is the modifier which refers to the city of London which got bombed , so the blitz and refusal has to be of the city of London ...i would go with C.

I think rishi4you is right..

IMO:C

London's blitz in historic perspective was that intesified aerial bombing cmpaign that continued for 57 nights and killed millions.

In the context of the question , we have to chose between two idioms,

To take on the significance OR
To take up the significance.

I would go for later.

Having been bombed for fifty-seven nights in a row,London’s refusal to surrender after the Blitz took up almost mythic significance as evidence of British citizens’ ability to resist the will of Hitler and Nazi Germany.

However i am confused slightly as we should expect a couple of commas after TO Surrender and after Blitz. I.e

Having been bombed for fifty-seven nights in a row,London’s refusal to surrender ,after the Blitz, took up almost mythic significance as evidence of British citizens’ ability to resist the will of Hitler and Nazi Germany.


What is the OA Plz.

IMO D for similar reasons as cited by "iamcste"

D for me

How do you explain that "Having been bombed for fifty-seven nights in a row" is modifying "Londons' refusal" (Possessive)

I would wait for OA and explanation to understand the grammar behind this sentence.

IMO option F none of the above!!!

This is a weird looking SC question.

A, B and C are out since London was bombed not the Blitz
(For more information on the Blitz refer the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz )

Now London's refusal was bombed sounds even more weirder but then as iamcste pointed out object of mythic significance is London's refusal plus correct idiom make D the better option.

Yes, how does the underlined portion modify any of those answer choices? Shouldn't the modifier be followed by a location?

IMO C.

London’s refusal - D and E out

B - and the refusal to surrender - Modifies what?

A - it - same as B

So, we're left with C

Here is official explanation

The answer to this question depends on the correct use of the idiom took on as a synonym for acquired or gained. Also, awkward wording in the original wrongly implies that the Blitz was the subject of bombing, actually the bombing was done to London.

A. Awkward wording illogically implies that the Blitz was bombed.
B. This option incorrectly implies that the Blitz belongs to London; also, the word after results in incorrect idiomatic usage of the phrase took on.
C. Took over is incorrect idiomatically; this option also illogically pairs the Blitz and the refusal as items of mythic significance.
D. This option makes it clear that London’s refusal to surrender is the appropriate object of mythic significance. The idiom took on is also used correctly.
E. The phrase took up is incorrect
The correct answer is D.

Even after I read the axplanation, I am still condused.

actually the bombing was done to London

Having been bombed for fifty-seven nights in a row,.... (here noun should be London, not refusal)

Hoe can refusal be bombed? What do you think?