In 1850, Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on
Women, arguing in a treatise for women to have equal
political and legal rights and for changes in the
married women's property laws.
(A) arguing in a treatise for women to have equal
political and legal rights
(B) arguing in a treatise for equal political and legal
rights for women
(C) a treatise that advocates women's equal political
and legal rights
(D) a treatise advocating women's equal political
and legal rights
(E) a treatise that argued for equal political and
legal rights for women
OA: E
What is the difference between E and B
Don't you need a verb in the second clause to make answer E paralleled? I would assume that "that" is the beginning of the split.
In 1850, Lucretia Mott published her Discourse
- hemant_rajput
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 447
- Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:13 am
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:13 members
- GMAT Score:700
It is the problem of modifier. In both A and B arguing modifying the Lucretia Mott. She not arguing in treatise, so eliminate both A and B. Eliminate D because of present continuous tense. Event is of past so it is need a verb in the past. Eliminate C for the same reason.JGmathelp wrote:In 1850, Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on
Women, arguing in a treatise for women to have equal
political and legal rights and for changes in the
married women's property laws.
(A) arguing in a treatise for women to have equal
political and legal rights
(B) arguing in a treatise for equal political and legal
rights for women
(C) a treatise that advocates women's equal political
and legal rights
(D) a treatise advocating women's equal political
and legal rights
(E) a treatise that argued for equal political and
legal rights for women
OA: E
What is the difference between E and B
Don't you need a verb in the second clause to make answer E paralleled? I would assume that "that" is the beginning of the split.
Hope it helps.
Cheers,
Hemant
I'm no expert, just trying to work on my skills. If I've made any mistakes please bear with me.
- Lifetron
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:51 am
- Thanked: 16 times
- Followed by:3 members
What's the source of the question ?
In E,
In 1850, Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on
Women, a treatise that argued for equal political and
legal rights for women
'a treatise' seems to modify women !
Can anyone confirm ?
In E,
In 1850, Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on
Women, a treatise that argued for equal political and
legal rights for women
'a treatise' seems to modify women !
Can anyone confirm ?
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:14 members
Bose i guess u r missing a point . the concrete nouns after comma can refer to the noun but here its "discourse on women" that "a treatise" refers .as RON says always keep an eye on nouns with preposition construction and that is exactly what is happening hereIn E,
In 1850, Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on
Women, a treatise that argued for equal political and
legal rights for women
'a treatise' seems to modify women !
Can anyone confirm ?
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:14 members
i guess ur not correct 100 percent .i agree that "arguing" modifies "Lucretia Mott" and this construction at times can be correct .for instance :"hemant propounded the theme,arguing blah blah ...." seems correct !hemant wrote :It is the problem of modifier. In both A and B arguing modifying the Lucretia Mott. She not arguing in treatise, so eliminate both A and B.
what gets wrong in B is that "Lucretia Mott" cannot argue "in a treatise" .
- EducationAisle
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 434
- Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:42 pm
- Location: Bangalore, India
- Thanked: 91 times
- Followed by:46 members
In B, it is not clear that Discourse on Women is the Treatise.JGmathelp wrote:What is the difference between E and B
Am not very clear on which is the second clause that you are referring to. The subordinate clause that argued.... obviously does have a verb argued. Also, when you say E is not parallel, what (according to you) should it be parallel to? If you could elaborate, perhaps we can help.JGmathelp wrote: Don't you need a verb in the second clause to make answer E paralleled? I would assume that "that" is the beginning of the split.
By the way, E uses absolute phrase. OG has numerous other examples of absolute phrase and it looks like GMAT likes to test students on this. Let me know and I can dig many more examples if it helps.
Ashish
MBA - ISB, GMAT - 99th Percentile
GMAT Faculty @ EducationAisle
www.EducationAisle.com
Sentence Correction Nirvana available at:
a) Amazon: Sentence Correction Nirvana
b) Flipkart: Sentence Correction Nirvana
Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi
MBA - ISB, GMAT - 99th Percentile
GMAT Faculty @ EducationAisle
www.EducationAisle.com
Sentence Correction Nirvana available at:
a) Amazon: Sentence Correction Nirvana
b) Flipkart: Sentence Correction Nirvana
Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi
- Lifetron
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:51 am
- Thanked: 16 times
- Followed by:3 members
Thanx aditya8062. This is from OG 12. Jus found out ! Actually, OG had the whole 'Discourse onaditya8062 wrote:Bose i guess u r missing a point . the concrete nouns after comma can refer to the noun but here its "discourse on women" that "a treatise" refers .as RON says always keep an eye on nouns with preposition construction and that is exactly what is happening hereIn E,
In 1850, Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on
Women, a treatise that argued for equal political and
legal rights for women
'a treatise' seems to modify women !
Can anyone confirm ?
Women' thing in Italics. That was very clear. I guess I was totally stupid with that last post. But thanx for replying, though.
My approach while working out in OG was this
Lucretia Mott published "Discourse on Women", which is a treatise. This treatise argued for X and for Y.
X - equal political and
legal rights for women
Y - changes in the
married women's property laws
So, A and B are out.
We need 'for' before X to have a parallel structure
Only E gives that. Hence, E !
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:14 members
i am glad it helped !!Thanx aditya8062. This is from OG 12. Jus found out ! Actually, OG had the whole 'Discourse on
Women' thing in Italics. That was very clear. I guess I was totally stupid with that last post. But thanx for replying, though.
So, A and B are out.
W
!e need 'for' before X to have a parallel structure
Only E gives that. Hence, E
this "for" is very much in B and B is also parallel .plz read my previous post as why B is wrong !!
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:14 members
well "Lucretia Mott ...., arguing in a treatise" is giving a notion that he is putting arguments and rebutting counterarguments in a continuous fashion ,something of a kind that a lawyer wud do in a courtroom ----this is not possiblegughanbose wrote:Could you just explain this aditya ? I don't think I get it fully !what gets wrong in B is that "Lucretia Mott" cannot argue "in a treatise"
but
when u say-- a treatise that argued for --that means that points have been mentioned in favor of something ,which is very much possible in a book !!
- GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
In A, it is unclear whether for women serves as an adjective modifying a treatise (A TREATISE for women) or as an adverb modifying arguing (ARGUING for women).In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights and for changes in the married women's property laws.
A.arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights
B.arguing in a treatise for equal political and legal rights for women
C.a treatise that advocates women's equal political and legal rights
D.a treatise advocating women's equal political and legal rights
E.a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women
It must be clear what a modifier is modifying.
Eliminate A.
In B, it is unclear whether for equal political and legal rights for women serves as an adjective modifying a treatise (A TREATISE for equal political and legal rights for women) or as an adverb modifying arguing (ARGUING for equal political and legal rights for women).
It must be clear what a modifier is modifying.
Eliminate B.
In C, a treatise that advocates RIGHTS and FOR changes is not parallel.
Eliminate C.
In D, a treatise advocating RIGHTS and FOR changes is not parallel.
Eliminate D.
The correct answer is E.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
- sahilchaudhary
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:13 am
- Location: India
- Thanked: 22 times
- Followed by:7 members
- GMAT Score:540
Thanks for the explantion GMATGuruNY.
Sahil Chaudhary
If you find this post helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Thank" icon.
https://www.sahilchaudhary007.blocked
If you find this post helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Thank" icon.
https://www.sahilchaudhary007.blocked
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:18 pm
Great Explanation GMATguru.GMATGuruNY wrote:In A, it is unclear whether for women serves as an adjective modifying a treatise (A TREATISE for women) or as an adverb modifying arguing (ARGUING for women).In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights and for changes in the married women's property laws.
A.arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights
B.arguing in a treatise for equal political and legal rights for women
C.a treatise that advocates women's equal political and legal rights
D.a treatise advocating women's equal political and legal rights
E.a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women
It must be clear what a modifier is modifying.
Eliminate A.
In B, it is unclear whether for equal political and legal rights for women serves as an adjective modifying a treatise (A TREATISE for equal political and legal rights for women) or as an adverb modifying arguing (ARGUING for equal political and legal rights for women).
It must be clear what a modifier is modifying.
Eliminate B.
In C, a treatise that advocates RIGHTS and FOR changes is not parallel.
Eliminate C.
In D, a treatise advocating RIGHTS and FOR changes is not parallel.
Eliminate D.
The correct answer is E.
The main clause states that she published X and the dependent clause uses 'comma + ING '. 'Comma + ING' takes the tense of the main verb and modifies the subject of the previous clause. So this means that Lucretia Mott argued for something as/while she published something. This is illogical right?
Or 'Comma + ING' represents 1. A consequence of 2. More information about the previous clause. So again 'arguing' and 'publishing' are two different things.
I used this logic to eliminate A and B. Is this line of reasoning correct?
Thanks in Advance.
- GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
This line of reasoning is valid.Alchemist14 wrote:Great Explanation GMATguru.
The main clause states that she published X and the dependent clause uses 'comma + ING '. 'Comma + ING' takes the tense of the main verb and modifies the subject of the previous clause. So this means that Lucretia Mott argued for something as/while she published something. This is illogical right?
Or 'Comma + ING' represents 1. A consequence of 2. More information about the previous clause. So again 'arguing' and 'publishing' are two different things.
I used this logic to eliminate A and B. Is this line of reasoning correct?
Thanks in Advance.
Generally, COMMA + VERBIng serves to express an action that is attributed to the nearest preceding SUBJECT and that occurs as part of the nearest preceding ACTION.
A and B: Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a treatise.
Here, the usage of COMMA + arguing implies that Lucretia Mott was ARGUING at the same time as she PUBLISHED.
This meaning is nonsensical.
Eliminate A and B.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3