satishchandra wrote:At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land, to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.
(A) land, to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the
Spaniards

Intended meaning: Radical faction proposed a new form of land ownership; It also says before the faction proposed the new form Mexican HAD 'pre-columbian form'. See the use of past perfect HAD BEEN that shows tht pre-columbian is the earlier form the ownership.

Sentence appears grammatically correct but IMO there is some degree of ambiguity in what the 'the prep ph TO WHAT...' modifies. It could modify LAND (noun modifier) or PROPOSED (verb modifier) - this ambiguity is bcoz THIS PHRASE IS PLACED AFTER A COMMA. I will always be skeptical of prep ph strating with TO after a comma.

satishchandra wrote: (B) land, a form of ownership of the pre-Columbians and respected by the Spaniards

Distorts the meaning - absence of HAD BEEN does not show that pre-Columbians is the earlier form of ownership

satishchandra wrote: (C) land, respected by the Spaniards and a pre-Columbian form of ownership

Distorts the meaning - absence of HAD BEEN does not show that pre-Columbians is the earlier form of ownership

satishchandra wrote: (D) land in which a pre-Columbian form of ownership was respected by the Spaniards

Distorts the meaning - absence of HAD BEEN does not show that pre-Columbians is the earlier form of ownership

satishchandra wrote: (E) land that had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards

Use of HAD BEEN is correct; Removed prep ph ambiguity by avoiding comma and converting into a relative clause that clearly modifies LAND.

IMO E

I disagree with OA

@patanjali.purpose : The phrase after 'that' is not supposed to modify land but the ownership itself (it gives further information about what kind of ownership and not land). Hence use of that is incorrect.

it took me a long time to reach to A. Yes, jumsumtak was saying correct. 'That' in E incorrectly modifies land which was unnecessary. The sentence is talking about ownership at the time of revolution and pre columbian ownership, but not about land.

IMO A.

satishchandra wrote:At the time of the Mexican agrarian revolution, the most radical faction, that of Zapata
and his followers, proposed a return to communal ownership of land, to what had been
a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.
(A) land, to what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the
Spaniards
(B) land, a form of ownership of the pre-Columbians and respected by the Spaniards
(C) land, respected by the Spaniards and a pre-Columbian form of ownership
(D) land in which a pre-Columbian form of ownership was respected by the Spaniards
(E) land that had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards
[spoiler]OA: A[/spoiler]

Can some body please explain clearly the meaning first and then POE?

I posted an explanation here:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/mexican-agra ... cityevent=

Meaning:
The faction proposed a return to...a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.

In A, what had been a pre-Columbian form of ownership is in apposition to communal ownership of land.
Two nouns (or noun phrases) are in apposition when they appear side-by-side, with the second serving to explain or define the first.
Thus, the faction proposed a return TO COMMUNAL OWNERSHIP -- in other words, TO WHAT HAD BEEN a pre-Columbian form of ownership respected by the Spaniards.

Hi Mitch,

Agree that "A" is the answer out of the lot...Do we need "to" after land.

Thanks
Jerry