Sentence Correction

Please help with this SC question.

Like the Dreyfus affair at the century and the Sacco-Vanzetti trial in 1921, the Hiss case became the political cause of an era, the more so because it was the first time a congressional hearing was shown on television.

A. the more so because it was
B. more for its being
C. more for the reason that it was
D. the more so for the reason because it was
E. the reason of it being more so is that it was

How to eliminate C in this answer?
[spoiler]
A[/spoiler][/spoiler]

Allow me to add another question,
What does it refers to in OA?
It surely is not placeholder / expletive it.
Have a nice day everybody

noxy416 wrote:Please help with this SC question.

Like the Dreyfus affair at the century and the Sacco-Vanzetti trial in 1921, the Hiss case became the political cause of an era, the more so because it was the first time a congressional hearing was shown on television.

A. the more so because it was
B. more for its being
C. more for the reason that it was
D. the more so for the reason because it was
E. the reason of it being more so is that it was

How to eliminate C in this answer?
[spoiler]
A[/spoiler][/spoiler]

We need a so here because it is referring to an entire action (the political casue) introduced before and we need its reintroduction.
We cannot use more alone. If we use more as a comparison, we need a "than" too

aflaam wrote:Allow me to add another question,
What does it refers to in OA?
It surely is not placeholder / expletive it.
Have a nice day everybody

The default referent for a subject pronoun is the preceding subject.
The Hiss case became the political cause of an era, the more so because it was the first time a congressional hearing was shown on television.
Here, it (subject pronoun) serves to refer to the Hiss case (the preceding subject).

GMATGuruNY wrote:

aflaam wrote:Allow me to add another question,
What does it refers to in OA?
It surely is not placeholder / expletive it.
Have a nice day everybody

The default referent for a subject pronoun is the preceding subject.
The Hiss case became the political cause of an era, the more so because it was the first time a congressional hearing was shown on television.
Here, it (subject pronoun) serves to refer to the Hiss case (the preceding subject).

Hello Mitch,
Doesn't it make sentence read like the case was a time?

aflaam wrote: Hello Mitch,
Doesn't it make sentence read like the case was a time?

One definition of a time is an occasion.
The following wordings are VERY common:
X was the first time Y happened.
X was the second time Y happened.
X was the only time Y happened.
X was the last time Y happened.

Thanks Mitch, great information as always.

I read one of your post about possessive pronoun + Verbing + Direct object being always incorrect.

Can it be applied in B to knock it off?

Moreover, can you comment on the split more vs more so vs the more so?

In official material, there are sentence in which more was used without than accompanying it.
more expensive , efficient cars--> something on these lines
Thank you very much
Have a nice day

aflaam wrote:Thanks Mitch, great information as always.

I read one of your post about possessive pronoun + Verbing + Direct object being always incorrect.

Can it be applied in B to knock it off?

A direct object receives the action performed by the subject.
Mary hit the ball.
Here, the ball -- the direct object of hit -- receives the hitting action performed by Mary.

Linking verbs such as is, are, was, and were cannot be followed by a direct object.
These verbs can be followed only by what is known as a COMPLEMENT
A complement does not receive an action but expresses the STATE-OF-BEING of the subject.
Mary is an astronaut.
Here, an astronaut is a complement expressing Mary's state-of-being.

its being the first time
Here, the first time is not a direct object but a COMPLEMENT.
Thus, this construction does not constitute POSSESSIVE + VERBing + DIRECT OBJECT.

Moreover, can you comment on the split more vs more so vs the more so?

In official material, there are sentence in which more was used without than accompanying it.
more expensive , efficient cars--> something on these lines
Thank you very much
Have a nice day

OA: The Hiss case became the political cause of the era, the more so because it was the first time a congressional hearing was shown on television.
Here, usage of the more so implies the following comparison:
Because the congressional hearing was shown on television, the Hiss case became MORE of a political cause THAN it would have become (had the hearing NOT been shown on television).
Even though the comparison is not explicitly stated, the usage of the more so makes the implied comparison crystal clear.

B: The Hiss case became the political cause of an era, more for its being the first time a congressional hearing was shown on television.
Here, it is unclear what is being compared:
more for its being the first time than for WHAT OTHER REASON?
Since the comparison is not clear, the answer choice is not valid.

While it is possible for more to appear without than, it must be crystal clear what two things are being compared.
An OA from GMAC:
a city economy becoming ever more dependent on information-based industries.
Here, the implication is that the city economy is becoming more dependent THAN IT USED TO BE.
Since the implied comparison is crystal clear, no than is required.

its being the first time
Here, the first time is not a direct object but a COMPLEMENT.
Thus, this construction does not constitute POSSESSIVE + VERBing + DIRECT OBJECT

Can we construe that whatever follows "being" is a compliment and thus invalidates the application of above mentioned rule?