Sentence Correction

In an earlier configuration, the crosspiece of the frame enclosing the Mona Lisa is made of beech wood, but now it is fitted with a crosspiece made of metal, thereby stabilizing the painting's poplar support and preventing cracks and warping.

(A)

In an earlier configuration, the crosspiece of the frame enclosing the Mona Lisa is made of beech wood, but now it is
(B)

According to an earlier configuration, the crosspiece of the frame enclosing the Mona Lisa was made of beech wood, but now it is
your answer
(C)

Once configured with a crosspiece made of beech wood, the frame enclosing the Mona Lisa is now
correct
(D)

The frame enclosing the Mona Lisa, once configured with a crosspiece made of beech wood, but now


(E)

The frame enclosing the Mona Lisa was once configured having its crosspiece made of beech wood but now


Somebody please clarify this doubt of mine. ! Should the initial meaning of the sentence be taken at face value . ? How can one predict the meaning of the sentence if it is not correct in the initial statement itself ?
Do you need to make a rational choice or something ?

Sometimes we need to discern the 'intended meaning' of the original sentence, if there is something illogical about it. What precisely troubled you about the original sentence? Can you be more specific about your doubt?

Thanks Ilana for the support
If you were to read the first statement, there seems to be a contrast between the usage of the two materials used i.e, Wood and metal Where the statement seems to say that a metal was used instead of the wood.
But the correct answer seems to say that wood was used but the metal was used to reinforce the frame. Logically seems true.
This is why I asked whether I need to make a rational decision rather than taking the initial statement as correct.

Choice C is NOT saying that the wooden frame is being supported by a metal frame. All it is saying is that in the past wood was used to design the frame and in the present metal is being used

I wouldn't say that the original sentence confuses or contrasts wood with metal. The problem is the ambiguity of the pronoun "it", and the awkward sentence construction.

In an earlier configuration, the crosspiece of the frame enclosing the Mona Lisa is made of beech wood, but now **it** is fitted with a crosspiece made of metal, thereby stabilizing the painting's poplar support and preventing cracks and warping.

In the original sentence, the pronoun "it" could refer either to the crosspiece or to the frame. If we take it to refer to the crosspiece we get an illogical statement: the crosspiece is fitted with a crosspiece. It is more logical to assume that the frame is now fitted with a metal crosspiece, whereas formerly it was fitted with a beech crosspiece. Therefore, we look for an answer that gets rid of the ambiguity of the pronoun "it".

Answer choice D achieves this because it doesn't use the construction "crosspiece of the frame", but breaks apart this troublesome construction (which was the culprit that creates the ambiguity). The corrected sentence begins with a modifier "once configured with a crosspiece" and then goes on to describe the frame, in the main sentence. Note that this corrected sentence construction gets rid of the pronoun "it" altogether, and therefore gets rid of the ambiguity, and achieves greater clarity, in a sentence without any logical traps.

Hi, which test prep company CAT is this Sc from ?

ya i got this in one of my Knewton cats .

Ilana@MasterGMAT wrote:I wouldn't say that the original sentence confuses or contrasts wood with metal. The problem is the ambiguity of the pronoun "it", and the awkward sentence construction.

In an earlier configuration, the crosspiece of the frame enclosing the Mona Lisa is made of beech wood, but now **it** is fitted with a crosspiece made of metal, thereby stabilizing the painting's poplar support and preventing cracks and warping.

In the original sentence, the pronoun "it" could refer either to the crosspiece or to the frame. If we take it to refer to the crosspiece we get an illogical statement: the crosspiece is fitted with a crosspiece. It is more logical to assume that the frame is now fitted with a metal crosspiece, whereas formerly it was fitted with a beech crosspiece. Therefore, we look for an answer that gets rid of the ambiguity of the pronoun "it".

Answer choice D achieves this because it doesn't use the construction "crosspiece of the frame", but breaks apart this troublesome construction (which was the culprit that creates the ambiguity). The corrected sentence begins with a modifier "once configured with a crosspiece" and then goes on to describe the frame, in the main sentence. Note that this corrected sentence construction gets rid of the pronoun "it" altogether, and therefore gets rid of the ambiguity, and achieves greater clarity, in a sentence without any logical traps.

Isn't C the answer?

Hey all,

Good discussion - and let me clear something up about "meaning". Your job on SC is to select the correct answer, which must be:

-Grammatically correct
-Logically valid

That's it. There's nothing in the rules that say you need to preserve the original meaning or interpret the intended meaning. The directions for SC are (I'm including the relevant portions, courtesy OG 12):

Choose the answer that produces the most effective sentence; this answer should be clear and exact, without awkwardness, ambiguity, redundancy, or grammatical error.

If you think the original phrasing is best, choose the first answer; otherwise choose one of the others.

Nothing says that you have to give any preference to the original. And the instructions that can be related to meaning are "effective sentence", "without awkwardness, ambiguity, redundancy". Illogical sentences are ineffective (they're worse than saying nothing at all), they're awkward, and they're often ambiguous (since the meaning confuses the reader). That's why you have to remove illogical meanings, but any other meaning is fine. Whether the crosspiece has been replaced, reinforced, whatever - as long as the meaning "makes sense" you're fine.

Thanks Brian
But what iof the original sentence has no grammatical errors and and an option has no errors too.Yet, the option changes the meaning . so, should we stick to the original sentence

Good question - but that's just it...they WON'T ask you to choose between two grammatically-and-logically correct sentences. That would be like having these answers to a quant problem:

(A) 1.5
(B) 3/2
(C) 6/4
(D) 3x/2x
(E) -(-1.5)

At that point it's just a terrible question. GMAT verbal always has one correct and four incorrect answer choices, and the incorrect answer choices are WRONG, not just "less right".

@Brian : I admit this makes a lot of sense. But, since I have read Stacey s post regarding the increased emphasis on meaning in the Sentence correction where there could be multiple options that could be grammatically correct but still have meaning issues, I have started to feel a little more skeptical about my answer choices. My earlier take on Sentence correction was similar to what you just quoted ( there will be something wrong somewhere in the four other options. But,now when you are pitted against two answer choices that are actually grammatically true but have meaning issues. It makes me wonder which option should I consider as my baseline . ? there is no baseline whatsoever. !!