Micheaux contends that the guild system both limited and encouraged ex

I would appreciate if someone could explain the reason to reject B) & E).
Thanks!

B) Italy, providing artisans support they would not have had otherwise in developing their craft, and discouraging them, once under such a system, from
This is incorrect as " providing artisans support " and "discouraging them" are two conflicting things.Hence,yet should be used instead of "and"

E) Italy; artisans, having no support otherwise, were allowed to develop their craft,
This one is incorrect as it changes the original meaning of the sentence,that is, the importance of the guild system for the artisans.

Quality question Patronus!
I was confused with E too and ended up choosing the same.

I think A[artisans.......were allowed to develop....yet ....were discouraged from...] is more direct than is E[...artisans were allowed to develop ....yet they were discourage from....]

As for B, providing artisans support.......rightly modifies 'the guild system' because of the presence of "that". However, there are two ideas in contrast:the system was able to provide few advantages but at the same time it also had few disadvantages in that it discouraged artisans from challenging the dynamics.

For this reason, these two contrasting ideas are best expressed with conjunction "yet" rather than "and", which is in B.

However, would love to hear perspectives on the same.

Thanks.

Intended purpose of the sentence is to provide a contention (here a paradoxical situation) and then exemplify it with a corresponding example.
The example provided has "yet" displays the paradox.
Option B: The paradox part has been completely removed and, thus, the meaning of the sentence is changed. It says that "the guild system both limited and encouraged experimentation by doing X and Y". This is not the intended meaning of the sentence. So, INCORRECT.

Option D: It removes a major chunk of the original sentence "were allowed to develop". Additionally, the example in original sentence is for describing a "situation", but in the option the example part is describing the "artisans". Use of "being" also not clear. So, INCORRECT.

I have doubts that A is correct.
we have conjunction yet - then a verb, but where is the subject?

Micheaux contends that the guild system both limited and encouraged experimentation in Renaissance Italy: artisans who would have otherwise had no support were allowed to develop their craft, yet, once under such a system, they were discouraged from challenging the existing power dynamics.

A) Italy: artisans who otherwise would have had no support were allowed to develop their craft, yet, once under such a system, were discouraged from

The first thing to note is that choice A is not the same as in underlined part. The subject ‘they’ found in the text, seems to be missing from choice A. Original poster may please re-check transcription.
_________________

I was stuck between A and E
Choose A
But E too seems correct to be ,please let us know why E is incorrect

In the underlined part of the original sentence, there are two events.
Earlier event: Artisans had no support - correct usage of past perfect
Latest event: Artisans were allowed to develop their craft - Correctly uses simple past.

Option E changes the meaning by removing the tense sequence. Hence E is incorrect.

I'm not seeing how E changes the meaning. Any other alternative explanation for why E is incorrect?

I have gone with A as the correct answer for below reasons.

Split is among ":", ";" and ","

Keeping that "," must be a modifier and then quickly reading options B and C realized that changes the meaning so eliminated both.
In E, I noticed that "would have had no support" is changed to "having no support" which means that it is confirmed that Artisans DID NOT have support as compared to in original sentence, mentions it as hypothetical scenario.

Between And D -- D had the same issue as E but also look alot more messier that A.

mikemcgarry,
I would love your input on this topic. Since it is a Magoosh question, maybe you have the right form and answer to the question as well

I could not understand how E was changing the meaning of the original sentence....gramatically I found no error in E....Experts please help....Thanks in advance..

In option E, the present participle "having no support otherwise" takes up the tense of the verb in the main clause, "were". This construction does not clarify that not having support preceded allowing. Option A takes care of the above issue by using the past perfect tense ("have had").

However the subject ("they") of the second clause is missing in option A (seems to be a typo). The option has been modified to include the the same.

I had difficulty in reading the ques


Micheaux contends that artisans.....were allowed.... , yet.. they were...--sentence is correct

But I thought this part as a fragment-- "the guild system both limited and encouraged experimentation in Renaissance Italy :"

Expert, please explain how this phrase("the guild system both limited and encouraged experimentation in Renaissance Italy :") is put in this sentence. I might not know what is the usage of ":"

Colon usage: To introduce something that follows logically; that is an effect or consequence.

I have three items in my grocery bag:apples, oranges and bananas.

Can someone explain or thoughts on this Option A how the first sentence introduced such an effect.

"The guild system both limited and encouraged experimentation in Renaissance" is a subordinate clause introduced by "that". This part is not a fragment.

The colon ":" introduces an explanation about or example of what has been stated before the colon. Here the part after colon explains how the guild system both limited and encouraged experimentation.

Hi sayantanc2k,

Sorry, I still have difficulty in understanding the structure.

What I understood by your explanation is: Semicolon is used to give the explanation of the previous clause
1. Does the above sentence show the correct usage of the semicolon?

2. Does semicolon provide the explanation of previous clause or that of any word in that clause? (In the given sentence, Semicolon":" provides explanation of guild system experimentation)

3. If we consider
subject: "the guild system both limited and encouraged experimentation in Renaissance Italy"
explanation of the subject: " artisans who would have otherwise had no support were allowed to develop their craft"

a. I am not sure whether the explanation is just above clause or the below clause(till the end)

"artisans who would have otherwise had no support were allowed to develop their craft, yet, once under such a system, they were discouraged from challenging the existing power dynamics"

b. Where is the verb for the subject


Please help !

1. ":" is called a colon, not a semicolon. Yes, the sentence correctly shows the usage of colon.

2. The part after colon provides further explanation for the part before colon (The part could be the whole clause OR a part of the clause, even a single word.)

3. a. The explanation is as follows:
Why does Micheaux contend that the guild system limited experimentation? - because "once under such a system, they were discouraged from challenging the existing power dynamics."
Why does Micheaux contend that the guild system encouraged experimentation? - because "artisans who would have otherwise had no support were allowed to develop their craft".

3 b. The verb for the first clause is "were allowed" (subject "artisans") and that of the second is "were discouraged" (subject "they").

Awesome Sayantanc. How silly I missed this logic !! Great !!