daagh wrote:
The paradox of the Roman empire’s history is marked by the fall of the western part around the 5th centaury A.D with several regions succumbing to cross border terrorism and internal insurgency, breaking into independent kingdoms, the rise of the eastern part, with the empire fire-walling the crises, and retaking most of the lost territories to establish a firm rule of over most of the Eastern Europe for another six to seven centuries
(A) with several regions succumbing to cross border terrorism and internal insurgency, breaking into independent kingdoms, the rise of the eastern part, with the empire fire - walling the crises, and retaking
(B) as several regions succumbed to cross border terrorism and internal insurgency and broke into independent kingdoms, and the rising of the eastern part as the empire fire-walled the crises and retook
C) when several regions succumbed to cross border terrorism and internal insurgency and broke into independent kingdoms, and by the rise of the eastern part, where the empire fire-walled the crises to retake
(D) with several regions succumbing to cross border terrorism and internal insurgency and breaking into independent kingdoms, and by the rise of the eastern part, with the empire fire -walling the crises, and retaking
(E) amid several regions succumbing to cross border terrorism and internal insurgency broke into independent kingdoms, and by the rise of the eastern part, as the empire fire -walling the crises, retook
Can somebody rate this?
The sentence talks about a paradox, so we must look for two scenarios, separated by a conjunction. The conjunction will make it easy to spot the paradox.
Also the 2 scenarios must be parallel. The structure of the sentence can be broken up as
Paradox marked
1.) by X,
and
2.) by Y
Lets look at the options one by one.
A) Lacks a conjunction and not parallelParadox marked
1.) by the fall of the western part ...,
2.) the rise of the eastern part
B) Not parallel (Tense)Paradox marked
1.) by the
fall of the western part ...,
and
2.) the
rising of the eastern part
C) Change in meaning. Also there is an issue at the end of the underlined part - where the empire fire-walled the crises to retake most of the lost territories to establish a firm rule of over most of the Eastern Europe. How can you fire-wall a crises to retake lost territory ? It's completely illogical.Original Sentence:Paradox marked
1.) by the fall of the western part around the 5th centaury A.D
with several regions succumbing ...,
and
2.) by the rise of the eastern part,
with the empire fire-walling the crises...The parts in Bold explain the reasons for the Fall and Rise of the parts of empire and are essential for explaining the paradox. But option C converts these parts into mere modifiers of the time and area, hence these parts become non-essential.
Paradox marked
1.) by the fall of the western part around the 5th centaury A.D
when several regions succumbed to cross border terrorism ...,
and
2.) by the rise of the eastern part,
where the empire fire-walled the crises to retake ...Non-essential modifiers can be safely removed without changing the meaning of the sentence, but if we remove the non-essential modifiers from this option, we are left with a sentence that no longer explains the paradox.
Paradox marked
1.) by the fall of the western part around the 5th centaury A.D
and
2.) by the rise of the eastern part
D) Perfect: Parallel and preserves the original meaningParadox marked
1.) by the fall of the western part
with several regions succumbing to cross border terrorism and internal insurgency and breaking into independent kingdoms
and
2.) by the rise of the eastern part,
with the empire fire -walling the crises, and retaking most of the lost territories
E) Not Parallel (Tense)Paradox marked
1.) by the fall of the western part
amid several regions
succumbing to cross border terrorism and internal insurgency
broke into independent kingdoms