Camille Claudet worked continuously through the 1880’s and early 1890’

Conditional perfect "would have" is used for a hypothetical instance that never happened in the past.

IF Sophie HAD EATEN pizza yesterday, THEN she WOULD HAVE BECOME ill.
IF Past Perfect, THEN Conditional Perfect (example from Manhattan GMAT)

The above statement implies that Sophie did not eat Pizza yesterday and did not become ill.

Camille Claudet actually conceived and executed, hence use of conditional perfect is wrong.

196. Camille Claudet worked continuously through the 1880’s and early 1890’s with the sculptor Auguste Rodin; since there are very few signed works of hers, the inescapable conclusion seems to be one of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin’s enormous production of that period.(
(A) inescapable conclusion seems to be one of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin’s enormous production of that period
(B) conclusion of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin’s enormous production of that period seems inescapable
(C) conclusion seems inescapable that part of Rodin’s enormous production of that period was conceived and executed by Claudet
(D) conclusion of part of Rodin’s enormous production of that period having been conceived and executed by Claudet seems inescapable
(E) seemingly inescapable conclusion is that Claudet would have conceived and executed part of Rodin’s enormous production of that period

C. or E. on first blush. A,B, and D. are very awkward and certainly not correct. So, now what is the difference? Which has a flaw or even a partial flaw. okay E seems to have the 'would have conceived and executed' where no subjunctive is called for. C. it reads better and I don't see a flaw.

If you found my comments helpful, please give kudos. (one more needed)
Thanks,
Skip

Can sum1 pls explain y is option E wrong ?

seem is a special verb.

seem+adjective

in this pattern the subject of seem is real
you seem tired to do this job

it seem that you are good at gmat.

in this pattern, it is fake subject.

so , that-clause can go with seem verb if the subject is fake.

in choice C. the subject is real so, seem can not go with that-clause.

c is wrong grammatically.

Am I right?

"That" clause may go even with a "real" subject:
Here "that" refers to a "real" SUBJECT, and instead of the "fake" placeholder "it", an actual noun is used: "conclusion". Read the sentence as follows:

The conclusion (that part of production was conceived by Camille) seems inescapable.

Ideally the "that" clause should have been next to "conclusion".

Can you explain why (B) is wrong?

In B, the implication is that the conclusion was made by Claudet ( "conclusion of Claudet") - the part "conceiving and executing part of Rodin’s enormous production of that period" modifies Claudet. The basic structure (after removing the modifier) of this clause is "conclusion of Claudet seems inescapable" - this construction does not make any sense.

Pre-thinking - Any thing after ';' must be a full sentence. Here two clauses are combined. First is dependent clause as it is started with since, SV pair is there. Post ',' it must be independent clause, another SV pair with independent meaning.

a. inescapable conclusion seems to be one of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin's enormous production of that period --- Main essence of this sentence is conclusion seems to be something. What is something? "one of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin's enormous production of that period." --- this part should have another verb. "one of Claudet" --- this does not make sense.

b. conclusion of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin's enormous production of that period seems inescapable ---- Meaning is Conclusion of Something seems inescapable. 'conceiving and executing' is modifying part. I don't like the meaning of it at all.

c. conclusion seems inescapable that part of Rodin's enormous production of that period was conceived and executed by Claudet --- Meaning : a part of rodin's production was done by Camille. meaning and grammar is all right.

d. conclusion of part of Rodin's enormous production of that period having been conceived and executed by Claudet seems inescapable --- again making conclusion out of something else.

e. seemingly inescapable conclusion is that Claudet would have conceived and executed part of Rodin's enormous production of that period. --- I have almost select this option and then i saw 'would have'. inescapable and would have makes it redundant. Would have will change the meaning too.

For a detail understanding of would have, could have and should have

Hi BrightOutlookJenn

Can you please provide few official examples which follow the above principle

Thanks

gmat1393
I think there's a bigger principle here than just ease of expression. While "belief in" and "belief that" are both valid expressions, they have different functions. The first introduces a noun ("I believe in fairies"), while the second introduces an entire clause ("I believe that fairies stole my lunch."). In the scientists example, we don't want to use "belief in," because it's not temperatures that we're saying scientists believe in. The belief we are describing is the belief that temperatures are rising.

We have the same construction in the original (Claudel) q. "Conclusion of," if we use it at all, should be followed by a noun or noun phrase ("conclusion of guilt," "a conclusion of mine"). We can't have a "conclusion of conceiving and executing" because this simply doesn't mean anything. These things can't apply to a conclusion. We need to show the idea that the conclusion consists of. "Conclusion that" can introduce an entire clause, and that's what we need here.

So the bigger idea here transcends even the of/that split. It's really about whether we are supposed to be introducing a noun ("I saw the deer") or a clause ("I saw that the deer was frightened."). If we are trying to express an entire idea, we're going to have a hard time packing it into a noun phrase, and that's where the use of "that" to introduce a clause comes in. Usually we do this with "verb + that," but some in place of the verb, we can use a noun that describes a concept, such as belief, conclusion, idea, notion, principle, etc. Otherwise, the construction "noun + that" usually introduces a noun modifier that does not look like a complete clause: "The jacket (that I want) is expensive," "I have a parrot (that talks)," etc.

Hi could you share why present participle used in A and B are awkward/wrong. Should we use present participle only while denoting certain tense

Better question: what exactly is the conclusion in (A) and (B)?

Looking at (C) for a moment, it makes perfect sense to say, "I conclude that something (part of Rodin’s production of that period) was conceived and executed by someone (Claudet)." But it doesn't make much sense to say, "I conclude Claudet conceiving and executing," or "I conclude of Claudet conceiving and executing."

Taking that one step further, "conceiving and executing" modify "Claudet" in (A) and (B), so the object of the preposition "of" is simply "Claudet" (plus some modifiers). So the conclusion in (A) and (B) is... Claudet? Can you conclude a person? Maybe in some poetic sense ("In conclusion, LeBron James." I guess that would make a good Adidas tagline?), but it wouldn't make much sense on a GMAT-style sentence.

(C) gives us a much better option: the conclusion is "that part of Rodin’s enormous production of that period was conceived and executed by Claudet."

In case you're wondering: how do we know that "conceiving and executing" are modifiers here? Well, in order to be verbs, we need some sort of helping verb in front of the -ing word(s), and we don't get any here. And if they were nouns, we'd want "Claudet" to be possessive (i.e. "Claudet's conceiving and executing"). For more on -ing words, check out this article: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 39780.html

I hope that helps!

Hi KarishmaB,

(C) The conclusion seems inescapable that part of Rodin’s enormous production of that period was conceived and executed by Claudet

Can you please share your reasoning for C? Although I eliminated the other options and boiled it down to C and E, I'm having a hard time trying to decode the verbiage "conclusion seems inescapable that..".

Thanks in advance!

Normally, we would write:

The conclusion that A will happen seems inescapable.

We will keep 'that A will happen' right next to 'conclusion' and then proceed with the predicate of the sentence - the verb etc.

But what happens when 'that A will happen' is a long convoluted clause while the predicate is quick and short (seems inescapable)? Then instead of breaking the continuity of the sentence, we place the predicate right next to the subject "The conclusion seems inescapable that ... " and continue with the that clause later.

This is what happens in this option too. It is acceptable usage.

Camille Claudet worked continuously through the 1880’s and early 1890’s with the sculptor Auguste Rodin; since there are very few signed works of hers, the inescapable conclusion seems to be one of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin’s enormous production of that period.

Option Elimination - The question is simple, but let's also understand the basics that may help solve such problems.

(A) inescapable conclusion seems to be one of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin’s enormous production of that period - "one of Claudet." Are there many Claudets, and are we talking about one? Wrong.

(B) conclusion of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin’s enormous production of that period seems inescapable - "conclusion of Claudet"?
"Conclusion of" is used to communicate the result of something. E.g., The report provided a summary of the research and led to the conclusion of the project. Is Claudet a "something," and do we need to communicate the result of "Claudet"? Wrong.
"Conclusion that" This phrase is typically used when introducing a specific statement or idea that serves as the conclusion. For example, "The experiment concluded that the hypothesis was incorrect."

(C) conclusion seems inescapable that part of Rodin’s enormous production of that period was conceived and executed by Claudet - "that" here acts as a connector for the noun "part" and the verb "was conceived," so it introduces a noun clause which acts as an object of the verb. If we want to go in more depth - this noun clause, "that part of Rodin’s enormous production of that period was conceived and executed by Claudet," acts as a subject complement with the linking verb "seems" and provides more information about what the "conclusion" is.
A bit of refresher on linking verbs (To be verbs - is, am, are, was, were be, being, been. Sensation verbs - feel, look, appear, seem, sound, taste. Becoming verbs - become, grow, turn, remain. Other common linking verbs - appear, remain, prove, smell.). There is no need to cram. Just keep the concept in mind.

(D) conclusion of part of Rodin’s enormous production of that period having been conceived and executed by Claudet seems inescapable -
A quick refresher on basics -
"having been" - the present perfect participle, is a wired here. Usually, the structure is "Having finished his work, John went for a walk" - the action of finishing work happened before John went for a walk. Present perfect participle is used to indicate an action that occurred before another past action (different from past perfect - in past perfect, the action has been completed in the past before another past action, but in present perfect participle, the effect of that action (that occurred before another past action) is present). After "Having been conceived and executed," there is no other action here.

(E) seemingly inescapable conclusion is that Claudet would have conceived and executed part of Rodin’s enormous production of that period -
Refresher on the basics -
"would have conceived" construction is used to express a hypothetical action in the past. Action or situation that never really happened in the past. We think about the past and think about the outcome. E.g., If he had attended the concert, he would have found the performance outstanding. This never really happened in the past. Now, if he goes in the past and supposedly attended the concert, "he would have found the performance outstanding."
There is no hypothetical here.