That the Fifth Lateran Council (1512 – 1517), [u]had it addressed the

The blue letters and long answer choices threw me off. But quite a simple one as 3 of the options can easily be eliminated. Between A and E, E has a problem with ambiguous pronouns. So A should be the answer.

Is there a flaw in choice A? That is, should "had it addressed" be parallel to "simply shoring up," making a more correct sentence "simply shored up?"

That the Fifth Lateran Council (1512 – 1517), had it addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply shoring up its own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation, still causes regret among modern Western Christian thinkers.
(A) had it addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply shoring up its own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation still causes

Dear banaorange,
That's actually what I would call "False Parallelism" --- matching the verb forms without regard for the structure. To some extent, this is an idiomatic grammatical structure. Notice that "addressed" is an action the Council didn't do --- it's in the subjunctive, because it's hypothetical. By contrast, "shoring up" is an action the Council did do --- it's real, historical, not hypothetical. The idiom for this form is

Had [subject] done X rather than doing Y

Here, "than" functions as a preposition with a gerund object.

For more on the subjunctive, see this post:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... ive-tense/
For more on gerunds:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... d-phrases/

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the awesome hard question.
In the above question "That the Fifth Lateran Council" is acting as the subject for the verbs beginning with " had it addressed ", "could have avoided and still causes" . Is this type of construction valid. P.S . The three verbs do not form a list and there are no conjunctions used.

Hello Mike,

I attempted this question on official Magoosh page after going through your awesome article on "that". The only reason I got this question wrong is because this question does not have a comma (in its original stem i.e Choice A) after Protestant Reformation on official Magoosh Page. I have highlighted that part above. Following is the link to it:
https://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/3218

I'd request you to quickly rectify this error. Again thanks for sharing all those awesome articles.
Devansh

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, it's important to understand that in this case and in many cases, a comma is optional. Neither the presence or the absence of the comma is strictly 100% right or 100% wrong. The comma there does add a little clarity but it detracts a bit from the flow of the sentence, so it's a trade-off. When I wrote this SC problem originally, I put that comma in, thinking it would provide more clarity. Then, numerous Magoosh students wrote in complaining about the presence of this comma, among other things, so we revised the question in a few ways, and chose to leave out the comma in the revision. Thus, it's ironic that you now complain about the absence of the comma, just as convinced that the absence is a mistake as others were convinced that its presence was a mistake. In fact, it's in a gray area, and there's a reasonably good argument to made in either direction.

Keep in mind that, on the real GMAT, no answer choice would ever be wrong purely on the basis of a comma. Don't let the presence or absence of a comma cloud the issue of the fundamental grammatical organization of a sentence.

Also, notice that you were confused on a question, you got it wrong, and you went to the assumption that there was an error in the question itself. This direction of thought, looking for the source of the difficulty outside of yourself, will not help you prepare for the GMAT. As it happens, there is no error here, but even if there were, that would not be a win for you in any meaningful way. It's one of the habits of excellence always to look inward when one has made a mistake: what can I learn from this? how can I deepen my understanding? That's the direction of inquiry that will bring you the most progress--in your preparation for the GMAT, in your B-school studies, and in your career. One of the fundamental marks of leadership is the ability to take deep responsibility, and I believe that it's precisely by expanding our capacity for responsibility that we all grow.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hey Mike

Cz the situation boils down to A & E my trail of thoughts for meaning was :-

(E) if it had addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply having shored up its own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, it might have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation, still a cause of

The It in the red is kind of placeholder, and in general we would write this construction if there cannot be any other antecedent of IT, It i believe in such situations refers to as what could have been done, However there is a use of another It at the start puts the whole pronoun and placeholder thing in jeopardy...Hence for meaning i opted out of E.


I hope i am correct in concluding the meaning, and should i go with such approach in actual GMAT Questions?

Meaning over Grammar only if i cant spot the real issues.

i have some thought

rather than is different from instead of . quite different. in this forum, there is unofficial question which test this point

instead of leaning gmat, i learn grammar
is correct sentence
rather than of learning gmat, i learn garmmar
is INCORRECT.

Classic example of how to intimidate test takers by long sentences with lot of obnoxious data ...

That the Fifth Lateran Council (1512 – 1517), had it addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply shoring up its own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation, still causes regret among modern Western Christian thinkers.
(A) had it addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply shoring up its own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation still causes

Could not understood the structure and flow of the sentence ..but just tried to understand the meaning and then kept this option on HOLD.

(B) if it addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply shoring up their own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation still cause

the "if ...then..." structure
in if then structure ...
if the "if" clause is in simple past tense ...then the "then" clause must have "would + Verb" or must be in "simple past tense" (depending on the context).
Here, none is given ..so WRONG


(C) if they addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church instead of simply shoring up their own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, they might have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation still cause

the "if ...then..." structure
in if then structure ...
if the "if" clause is in simple past tense ...then the "then" clause must have "would + Verb" or must be in "simple past tense" (depending on the context).
Here, none is given ..so WRONG
Also, "THEY" is PLURAL whereas the antecedent "THE FIFTH LATERAL COUNCIL" is SINGULAR

(D) if they addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church instead of simply shoring up their own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, they could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation, still a cause of

[b]the "if ...then..." structure
in if then structure ...
if the "if" clause is in simple past tense ...then the "then" clause must have "would + Verb" or must be in "simple past tense" (depending on the context).
Here, none is given ..so WRONG
Also, "THEY" is PLURAL whereas the antecedent "THE FIFTH LATERAL COUNCIL" is SINGULAR

(E) if it had addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply having shored up its own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, it might have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation, still a cause of

the "if ...then..." structure
in if then structure ...
if the "if" clause is in PAST PERFECT tense ...then the "then" clause must have "would have + Verb"
Here, none is given ..so WRONG

So the Correct Answer is A

Hi mike,

Can you please elaborate on the difference between 'rather than' and 'instead of', highlighting various cases in which each of them can be used.

Thanks for clarifying many doubts

Dear anuj.gmat,

I'm happy to respond.

Fundamentally, the word "of" is a preposition, and thus can be followed only by a noun or something behaving as a noun (e.g. a gerund). By contrast, the word "than" is a subordinate conjunction, so it would be followed by an entire clause--or any part of a clause after common words have been omitted. Right away, this means that virtually any grammatical structure can follow "rather than," but only nouns can follow "instead of." This is difference #1: the former is much more flexible and can handle a wide variety of grammatical forms.

Thus, we get complete mistakes in some instances when we use "instead of." All of these mistakes are avoided with the use of "rather than."
He said the longest part of the drive was across the plain instead of up the mountain.
He said the longest part of the drive was across the plain rather than up the mountain.
(We cannot put one prepositional phrase inside another!)

After the accident, she was relieved instead of upset.
After the accident, she was relieved instead of upset.
(An adjective cannot be the object of a preposition!)

She said she would record a podcast instead of write a book.
She said she would record a podcast rather than write a book.
(A verb cannot be the object of a preposition!)

Of course, we could change that verb to a gerund, and grammatically, a gerund can be the object of a preposition.
She said she would record a podcast instead of writing a book.
That is 100% grammatically correct, but not a good sentence. You see, in the "rather than" version above, we had perfect parallelism between the two verbs. Since these two actions are logically juxtaposed, it makes sense to reflect that with parallel structure. The "instead of" version with the gerund has to disrupt the parallelism to make the grammar work. This is difference #2. The "rather than" structure elegantly allows for complete parallel structure, whereas the "instead of" structure is a jerry-rigged half-baked mediocrity. This is like a race between Usain Bolt and a toddler learning to walk--it's no contest!

Now, think of the way English is used in real life. Uneducated native English speakers--and in America, we have an unimaginably LARGE number of these!--make these "instead of" mistakes all the time and don't understand the "rather than" structure. All this poor usage serves to give the "rather than" structure sound that much more intelligent and well-spoken. This is difference #3. Even when "instead of" would be 100% correct, say with ordinary nouns, the "rather than" version sounds more elegant.
He is building a treehouse instead of a shed.
He is building a treehouse rather than a shed
Now, I want to emphasize that the "instead of" is 100% grammatically correct. Strictly speak, the latter is still parallel, while the former isn't, but this matters less with nouns. Think about who would say each. Anyone could say the first one, but only someone well educated and well spoken would say the second. Therefore, people who are well spoken gravitate away from the former and toward the latter. If you want to impress others when you write, always use "rather than" rather than "instead of."

In this vein, the structure "instead of" is almost never part of a correct answer on the GMAT SC.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

This is a complicated sentence! There are at least three different layers of grammar of which to keep track here. First of all, there is a gargantuan substantive clause, “That the Fifth Lateran Council … the Protestant Reformation”: this is the subject of the whole sentence, and requires singular verb, the main verb of the entire sentence.

Within this monstrosity of a substantive clause, there’s a main subject of the clause (“the Fifth Lateran Council”), a main verb of the clause (“could have avoided”), and two subordinate clauses nested within it.

The first subordinate clause nested inside the substantive clause is the large hypothetical clause (“had it addressed …. Western Europe”). The second subordinate clause is a relatively short adjectival clause (“that led to the Protestant Reformation”), a restrictive clause, modifying the noun “events.”

First of all, in the overall sentence, the enormous substantive clause is the subject and requires singular verb. Only (A) has the singular verb “causes” —- (B) & (C) have the plural verb “cause”, and in (D) & (E) there’s actually no verb at all in the main sentence.

Furthermore, within the hypothetical clause beginning with “had” or “if”, the subject is a pronoun. The antecedent of the pronoun is “the Fifth Lateral Council”, which is singular. This needs to take singular pronouns: it and its. This is a mistake the GMAT loves — using plural pronouns (“they”, “their”) for a singular collective noun. Yes, there were many people participating in the Fifth Lateral Council, but the entity itself, the Fifth Lateral Council, was a singular event. GMAT loves to bait test-takers with this mistake. (B) & (C) & (D) make this mistake.

Also, within the epic substantive clause, the main subject of the clause is “the Fifth Lateral Council”, followed by a long “if” clause, followed by the main verb of the clause. Answer choices (C) & (D) & (E) all make another classic GMAT mistake, a pattern of the form:



This is the "double subject" mistake. The main subject of the clause (“the Fifth Lateral Council”) is directly the subject of the main verb of the clause (“could have avoided”) — we don’t need the extra pronoun (“they” or “it”) in front of that verb. The GMAT loves to stick a large modifying clause between the subject and the verb because, with so many words intervening, people not reading carefully will not see the connection between the subject and the verb, and will mistakenly think the verb needs a pronoun subject directly in front of it. Beware of this common GMAT SC mistake.

For a variety of reason, (B) & (C) & (D) & (E) are all wrong. Answer =(A).

That the Fifth Lateran Council (1512 – 1517), had it addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply shoring up its own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation, still causes regret among modern Western Christian thinkers.


(A) had it addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply shoring up its own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation still causes - has no error. Therefore, (A) is the right answer choice.

(B) if it addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply shoring up their own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation still cause - the singular collective noun ''Lateran Council'' cannot take the plural demonstrative pronoun ''their''.

(C) if they addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church instead of simply shoring up their own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, they might have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation still cause - the singular collective noun ''Lateran Council'' cannot take the plural demonstrative pronoun ''their''.

(D) if they addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church instead of simply shoring up their own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, they could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation, still a cause of - the singular collective noun ''Lateran Council'' cannot take the plural demonstrative pronoun ''their''.

(E) if it had addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply having shored up its own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, it might have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation, still a cause of - the intention of the passage is to highlight that ''the inability of the council to avoid the series of events that led to the protestant reformation is what is labelled as a cause of concern, not the reformation itself.

Hi mikemcgarry. AjiteshArun

I find there is no parallelism around 'rather than' in the correct option 'A'

We have 'addressed the growing concern .... rather than simply shoring up...'

The highlighted parts don't seem to be parallel, or I am too mechanical in my analysis ?

That the Fifth Lateran Council (1512 – 1517), had it addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply shoring up its own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation, still causes regret among modern Western Christian thinkers.


(A) had it addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply shoring up its own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation still causes

(B) if it addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply shoring up their own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation still cause

(C) if they addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church instead of simply shoring up their own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, they might have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation still cause

(D) if they addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church instead of simply shoring up their own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, they could have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation, still a cause of

(E) if it had addressed the growing concerns of reformers within the Catholic Church rather than simply having shored up its own political prerogatives with respect to the monarchies of Western Europe, it might have avoided the series of events that led to the Protestant Reformation, still a cause of

I think this question is quite easy to solve if one looks only at the verb "to cause". In this case the verb has to be "causes". So, all answers except A are out.

Posted from my mobile device

Hi abhishekmayank,

This is something about rather than that seems a little weird, but when we are looking at verb forms around a rather than, we can choose to put an -ing verb form in the second position. This does not change the meaning of the sentence.

Thanks AjiteshArun !!. Your answer really helps.

But one thing to clarify. Whether the 'weird' thing you are referring to in your 1st line of comment is generic about 'rather than', or it is 'weird' in this sentence specifically ?