Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor was often played in conce

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION FROM MANHATTAN GMAT

In the original sentence, "was" does not need to be repeated after "nor." Moreover, "having been won over..." incorrectly modifies "classical guitar" (the subject of the preceding clause) instead of Segovia.

(A) This choice is the same as the original sentence.

(B) This choice does not correct the modifier issue.

(C) CORRECT. This choice corrects the "nor" issue as well as the modifier issue. Now it is clear that it was Segovia who was won over by the instrument's sound.

(D) This choice is incorrect because the phrase "classical guitar did not have prestige nor was it performed..." is not parallel ("did not have....nor was it performed"). Note that one verb is active & the other is passive. In general, you should make parallel verbs have the same voice: see SC #86 in the 11th edition. In this problem, the GMAT demands parallelism of voices, although the construction is not “nor”-based.

Also, the construction “not… nor…” in this context requires inversion of the second verb (“nor was it performed”). Such inversions can sound stilted. Finally, as an idiom, the expression “to have prestige” is inferior to “to be prestigious.”

(E) This choice is incorrect because it repeats "was" after "nor" and because it implies that Segovia was won over by the sound of the instrument in the mid-twentieth century, while the original sentence makes clear that this happened at some earlier point.

C is correct !!

A) is incorrect bcoz of wrong usage of idiom Neither X nor y as in correct Gmat sentece, in this idiom X & Y must be parallel to each other & in actual sentence Prestigious (Adjective) is not parallel to Played (verb), hence A is out.

Same is with B & E

Now left with C & D :

D - wrong idiomatic usage it must be neither X or Y while in actual sentence usage is not X nor Y.

Left with C : Checking C - Parallelism OK as was not prestigious & was not often played.
He - pronoun clearly refer to Anderia
Seems OK thus C

The correct idiom is was neither ... nor .... (do not repeat 'was' because neither is the trigger word)

1]Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor was often played in concert halls until it was revived by Andres Segovia in the mid-twentieth century, having been won over by the instrument's sound despite its relative obscurity. wrong idiom -->incorrect

2]Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor played often in concert halls until it was revived by Andres Segovia in the mid-twentieth century, having been won over by the instrument's sound despite its relative obscurity. correct use of idiom, but 'its' is incorrect, it refers to 'sound' but 'its' cannot reach inside the instrument's sound--> incorrect

3]Classical guitar was not prestigious and was not often played in concert halls until Andres Segovia revived it in the mid-twentieth century, after he was won over by the sound despite the instrument's relative obscurity. correct use of idiom, make it clear what possesses relative obscurity ---> correct OA

4]Classical guitar did not have prestige nor was it performed often in concert halls until its revival by Andres Segovia, who in the mid-twentieth century was won over by the instrument's sound despite its relative obscurity. wrong idiom --> incorrect

5]Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor was often played in concert halls until Andres Segovia revived it in the mid-twentieth century, when he was won over by the sound of the relatively obscure instrument. wrong idiom, shift the meaning of the last sentence. The last sentence means he won by the sound although the guitar's sound has 1 disadvantage, which is the relative obscurity. He did not win by the disadvantage---> incorrect

Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor was often played in concert halls until it was revived by Andres Segovia in the mid-twentieth century, having been won over by the instrument's sound despite its relative obscurity.



Option is (E) is attractive . However it has parallelism error which is subtle
It repeats the helping verb 'was' , but the first verb was outside the Neither/Nor construction and second verb is inside the construction. This should not be the case. Either verb should be outside the construction or the verb should be in side the construction twice.

(D) is wrong for many reasons as daagh explained.

(A) and (B) can be eliminated for use of having , which is not modifying anything

(C) is the Answer

In this problem we have modifier and parallelism problems. In A and B the main incorrect thing is the modifier ",having been won over" this Verb-ing modifier, modifies the whole clause before. This does not make really sense, since the meaning of the sentence wants us to modifiy Andres Segovia. Furthermore we have parallelism problems which are already mentioned in the posts above. D uses "nor" which is not allowed without "neither"

D uses "nor" which is not allowed without "neither"

"Nor" can be used without "neither" the same as "or" can be used without "either", or "and" can be used without "both".

D is wrong for other reasons:

"Nor" is introducing an independent clause, so it must be preceded by a comma.
Classical guitar did not have prestige ,nor was it performed ...
If "it" is eliminated, it becomes part of the first clause and the comma is not needed.
Classical guitar did not have prestige nor was performed...

The position of the modifier "in the mid-twentieth century" changes the original meaning.
Original meaning:
Classical guitar was revived in the mid-twentieth century.
New meaning:
Andres Segovia was won over in the mid-twentieth century

Keeping the original meaning is essential, unless the meaning in the original sentence is nonsensical. If the meaning does not make sense, we must interpret the authors intention. In this case the original meaning makes sense, even more than in D.

The GMAT does not ask specifically about punctuation, but the sentence must be correct, including punctuation.

Hey AR15J !

This sentences uses the phrasal verb "win over". You can read briefly about phrasal verbs in general here: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/phrasal-verb and about the particular phrasal verb "win over" here: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/win-sb-over?q=win+over.

However, I would not be overly concerned with understanding and learning a list of phrasal verbs for the exam. What I would focus on is how the meaning is being conveyed. So, let me illustrate the same with the help of an example.

1. I was won over by her intelligence. - Passive
2. Her intelligence won me over. - Active

As you can see, the meaning conveyed by both the sentences is the same. I was impressed (the actual meaning of win-over is more specific, but I am keeping it simple here) by her intelligence or Her intelligence impressed me. The only difference is the passive and active construction. This is exactly what happens in the correct choice.

Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor was often played in concert halls until it was revived by Andres Segovia in the mid-twentieth century, having been won over by the instrument's sound despite its relative obscurity.

C) Classical guitar was not prestigious and was not often played in concert halls until Andres Segovia revived it in the mid-twentieth century, after he was won over by the sound despite the instrument's relative obscurity.

The portion after the comma in the correct choice basically intends to communicate that the sound of the instrument won over Andres. It is just written in the passive form.

Hope this helps!

Cheers!

What is wrong with option B?

2. Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor played often in concert halls until it was revived by Andres Segovia in the mid-twentieth century, having been won over by the instrument's sound despite its relative obscurity.

and how is that option 3 is more precise than option 2....please clarify

Hi Tridhipal,

Thank you for your question! Let's look at both answers B & C, and figure out why C is the better answer.

B. Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor played often in concert halls until it was revived by Andres Segovia in the mid-twentieth century, having been won over by the instrument's sound despite its relative obscurity.

While this sentence does use parallel format (a problem in some of the other answers), the real problem with this sentence lies with the modifier (in bold). Since it's placed directly after "the mid-twentieth century," readers might mistake this to say that the century was won over, not Segovia. Therefore, this is a dangling or misplaced modifier.

C. Classical guitar was not prestigious and was not often played in concert halls until Andres Segovia revived it in the mid-twentieth century, after he was won over by the sound despite the instrument's relative obscurity.

This is the better answer because it uses parallel format AND by saying "he was won over," it's clearer who/what was won over.

I hope this helps!

GMATNinja

Would you please help me in understanding the fault in E? E looks fine and better than C at the same time.

Hey TaN1213 ,

E is a blunder here.

The rule of "neither X nor Y" is very strict. Meaning X and Y must be ||.

Now look at E.

It says

Classical guitar was neither prestigious(X) nor was often played(Y) in concert halls until Andres Segovia revived it in the mid-twentieth century, when he was won over by the sound of the relatively obscure instrument.

Here X is prestigious. It is a quality.

Y is 'was often played'. It describes the action.

Therefore, a quality cannot be parallel to an action. Hence, E is wrong.

Does that make sense?

Hello,
Thanks for taking up the post.
Would the following modified version of E be correct?
" Classical guitar was neither prestigious(X) nor often played(Y) in concert halls until Andres Segovia revived it in the mid-twentieth century, when he was won over by the sound of the relatively obscure instrument. "

Hey TaN1213 ,

Unfortunately No.

Again your X is a quality(prestigious) whereas Y is a verb (played). It will again be wrong.

Thanks

Hey,

I have a strong feeling that "often played" can work as adjective in much the same way as can 'prestigious' . Are you absolutely sure that this version is wrong or we both can get our doubt clarified further?

Example: The often played game of Quidditch was soon banned in Hogswartz after the death of Dumbledore. ---> acts as adjective.

Had Y been "played often", I would have agreed with your reasoning that Y is an action.

Hey TaN1213 ,

You made me think for a second but yes I have a solid reason to prove my point.

Do you know once outside vs twice inside rules? If not, check them out here: https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-para ... ce-inside/

Now, if you look from that stand point, you did nothing but moved the original option E from 'Twice Inside' to 'Once Outside'

i.e. You converted "was prestigious nor was played" to "was prestigious nor played". This doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.

So, technically option E is still conveying:

1. It was prestigious
2. It was often played.

Regarding the example you gave, you are absolutely correct but that isn't applicable here.

Does that make sense?

[quote="swatirpr"]Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor was often played in concert halls until it was revived by Andres Segovia in the mid-twentieth century, having been won over by the instrument's sound despite its relative obscurity.

(A) Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor was often played in concert halls until it was revived by Andres Segovia in the mid-twentieth century, having been won over by the instrument's sound despite its relative obscurity.

Option A is wrong because :- was neither X nor was Y " is not parallel. After "nor" helping verb "was" is there. But after "neither " no helping verb "was" is there. Parallelism is violated. So option A is incorrect.

(B) Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor played often in concert halls until it was revived by Andres Segovia in the mid-twentieth century, having been won over by the instrument's sound despite its relative obscurity.
Option B is wrong because "its" is ambiguous . "its" can refer to either sound or guitar.


(C) Classical guitar was not prestigious and was not often played in concert halls until Andres Segovia revived it in the mid-twentieth century, after he was won over by the sound despite the instrument's relative obscurity.
Option C is correct.

(D) Classical guitar did not have prestige nor was it performed often in concert halls until its revival by Andres Segovia, who in the mid-twentieth century was won over by the instrument's sound despite its relative obscurity.
Option D is wrong
because :- "its" is ambiguous . "its" can refer to either sound or guitar.
(E) Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor was often played in concert halls until Andres Segovia revived it in the mid-twentieth century, when he was won over by the sound of the relatively obscure instrument.

Same reason for A. After "neither" no verb is there but after "nor" , "was" is there. So parallelism is not maintained.

VeritasKarishma
GMATNinja
Is my explanation correct ?