Sentence Correction

My question related to two OG questions :

OG12 gives conflicting explanations for these two questions regarding the usage of subject.

To Josephine Baker, Paris was her home long before it was fashionable to be an expatriate, and she remained in France during the Second World War as a performer and an intelligence agent for the Resistance

A. To Josephine Baker, Paris was her home long before it was fashionable to be an expatriate
B. For Joshephine baker, long before it was fashionable to be an expatriate, paris was her home
C. Joshephine baker made Paris her home long before to be an expatriate was fashionable expatriate
D. Long before it was fashionable to be an expatriate, Josephine Baker made Paris her home
E. Long before it was fashionable being an expatriate, Paris was home to Josephine Baker

OA is D. Usage of She (in bold in question) is justified here and I do not see any issue either.

Look at this question:
Joan of Arc, a young Frenchwoman who claimed to be divinely inspired, turned the tide of English victories in her country by liberating the city of Orleans and she persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne.

(A) she persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne
(B) persuaded Charles VII of France in claiming his throne
(C) persuading thatthe throne be claimed by Charles VII of France
(D) persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne
(E) persuading that Charles VII of France should claim the throne

OA is D.
Explanation from OG : Joan of Arc is the subject, turned is the first verb of the main clause,and persuaded is the second verb; so the sentence should be Joan ... turned .. . and persuaded.
Inserting she before the second verb both violates the parallelism and adds an unnecessary word.

How She is justified in first question but not in second. Experts please.

Hey buddy, good question, i have no clue here and i'm just adding this post as to receive email notifications for this thread...i'm eager to see, the explanations from expert..

By the way, I read this rule in some video that

COMMA + FANBOYS -->> should be used to connect two independent clauses

here in both the sentences we haven't use any COMMA before AND which is connecting two IC's...so it means we can use this also

IC + fanboy + IC

I verified from OG and the first question does have a comma at the end, so it is a case of 2 IC's with COMMA+AND so we do need the subject she - and the correct option does have it.

where as in the second sentence it is a case of parallelism.
she turned X and persuaded Y. so she violates tht here.

BUT
i have a diff doubt though for Q2, why cant we take liberating and persuading to be parallel.
even when i read the sentence for meaning, it does make sens,
Joan turned the tides by liberating and persuading... whts wrong with this?

@Gmatmadeeasy

Please edit the first question as @rohu suggested that COMMA makes a huge difference in structure

Hey Rohu

thanks a lot for that verification...now i got what OG wanna suggest otherwise it gonna be another blow to my concepts..

See as i mentioned a rule earlier:

COMMA + FANBOYS both are necessary to connect two independent clause...u simply can not use just a FANBOY to connect two IC's...for the first question will be correct as it connects two IC's with COMMA + FANBOY

whereas in 2nd question its a clear violation of the above mentioned rule

In 2nd question,

i understand your doubt...you are talking about Op C and Op E, right and wanna make liberating/persuading parallel, so if u break the sentence and connect again it will be like this one for Op E

Joan of Arc turned the tide of English victories in her country by liberating the city of Orleans
and Joan of Arc turned the tide of English victories in her country by persuading that Charles VII of France should claim the throne

while Op D will be read as

Joan of Arc turned the tide of English victories in her country by liberating the city of Orleans
and Joan of Arc persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne

Now compare the red part and green part...why Op D looks better, because logically u persuade someone which is the case in Op D while in Op E, persuading a relative clause (that) looks awkward.

Thanks

GMATMadeEasy wrote:My question related to two OG questions :

OG12 gives conflicting explanations for these two questions regarding the usage of subject.

To Josephine Baker, Paris was her home long before it was fashionable to be an expatriate, and she remained in France during the Second World War as a performer and an intelligence agent for the Resistance

A. To Josephine Baker, Paris was her home long before it was fashionable to be an expatriate
B. For Joshephine baker, long before it was fashionable to be an expatriate, paris was her home
C. Joshephine baker made Paris her home long before to be an expatriate was fashionable expatriate
D. Long before it was fashionable to be an expatriate, Josephine Baker made Paris her home
E. Long before it was fashionable being an expatriate, Paris was home to Josephine Baker

OA is D. Usage of She (in bold in question) is justified here and I do not see any issue either.

Look at this question:
Joan of Arc, a young Frenchwoman who claimed to be divinely inspired, turned the tide of English victories in her country by liberating the city of Orleans and she persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne.

(A) she persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne
(B) persuaded Charles VII of France in claiming his throne
(C) persuading thatthe throne be claimed by Charles VII of France
(D) persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne
(E) persuading that Charles VII of France should claim the throne

OA is D.
Explanation from OG : Joan of Arc is the subject, turned is the first verb of the main clause,and persuaded is the second verb; so the sentence should be Joan ... turned .. . and persuaded.
Inserting she before the second verb both violates the parallelism and adds an unnecessary word.

How She is justified in first question but not in second. Experts please.

In the OA for the first SC, giving remained its own subject (she) serves a purpose: it separates the second action (she remained in France) from the first (Josephine Baker made Paris her home). This separation is needed because the introductory modifier (long before it was fashionable) refers only to the first action. It wouldn't make sense to say the following:

Long before it was fashionable...Josephine Baker...remained in France.

Adding she makes it clear that the introductory modifier refers only to the first action:

Long before it was fashionable...Josephine Baker made Paris her home...and she remained in France...

In the second SC, the she in answer choice A serves no purpose, making D (the OA) the better answer choice.

@Mitch: Excellent. thanks a lot. That makes sense; in fact, i used the same reasoning in one OG12 question to understand why a prepositional phrase playing role of adverbial phrase can't be placed in the beginning.

This separation is needed because the introductory modifier (long before it was fashionable) refers only to the first action.

I understand the subordinate clause in the beginning refers to the first clause.

Question: There is an another question in Verbal Review second edition,in which usage of second subject is called as ungrammatical even in two independent clauses -- without clause modifiers of course. I have to search the question . Any thoughts ?

@atulmangal and @rohu27: I agree with you about the usage of comma and am aware of this;however, the explanation in OG12 does not say this, hence my question.

We love performances of Josephine by the way. I watched some plays trying to reproduce the same .