OG13-Q40

prabsahi wrote:Hi Experts,

Request you to please clarify where am I going wrong and why am I going wrong.

I rejected E based on the reasoning --A treatise cannot argue.

While I see what you are getting at, since a treatise is similar to an essay or a thesis, the truth is that in a sense a treatise can be seen as arguing.

Also Option A and B has CLAUSE,VERB-ing

Now to me arguing made perfect sense with the subject in the preceding clause that
is Lucretia..She published and she argued.

While, once again you make a valid point, if you accept that a treatise can in a sense argue, then E becomes the most succinct and effective of the choices.

Also, in A and B, the wording, arguing in a treatise for, creates ambiguity. Whether she is arguing in a treatise and for women to have equal rights or she is arguing in a treatise and the treatise itself is for women to have equal rights is not entirely clear in A and B.

Meanwhile also, A and B do not make entirely clear that the the treatise in which she argued is in fact her Discourse on Women.

Also please highlight the parallelism involved with ...X and For changes in the married women's political laws.

Thanks

I have seen people say that in A,

women to have equal political and legal rights

and

changes in the married women’s property laws

are not parallel, but while women to have equal political and legal rights is awkward and not well constructed, both expressions serve the same purpose, object of preposition for.

C and D do, however, have clear parallelism issues.

You have to either have for before both women's equal political and legal rights and changes in the married women’s property laws, or before neither.

She advocated for rights and for changes.

She desired rights and changes.

Alternatively, the for could be only before the first by not only before the second. When placed before the first item, the for can work with both the first and second item.

Incorrect: She advocated rights and for changes.

Correct: She advocated for rights and changes.

Since the idiomatically correct expression is advocated for, you do need for somewhere after advocated.