Ryunosuke Akutagawa‘s knowledge of the literatures of Europe, China

Hello Everyone!

Let's take a look at this question, one issue at a time, and narrow it down to the right choice! Before we dive in, let's take a look at the original question and highlight any major differences between the options in orange:

Ryunosuke Akutagawa‘s knowledge of the literatures of Europe, China, and that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as the content of his fiction.

(A) that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as
(B) that of Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, and it informed his literary style as well as
(C) Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style and
(D) Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, as it informed his literary style as much as
(E) Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style in addition to

After a quick glance over the options, we have a few things we can focus on:

1. that of Japan / Japan (parallelism)
2. was / were (subject-verb agreement)
3. How they end (modifiers/conjunctions)

Let's start with #1 on our list: that of Japan / Japan. This is an issue of parallelism! Let's take a look at each option, and determine which ones use parallel structure, and toss out the ones that don't:

(A) Europe, China, and that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as
(B) Europe, China, and that of Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, and it informed his literary style as well as
(C) Europe, China, and Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style and
(D) Europe, China, and Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, as it informed his literary style as much as
(E) Europe, China, and Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style in addition to

We can rule out options A & B because "that of Japan" isn't worded the same way as the other two items on the list (Europe, China).

Now, let's move on to #2 on our list: was / were. This is an issue of subject-verb agreement! We know the subject of the sentence is "knowledge," which is a singular subject, and that means we need to use a singular verb to match. Let's see which options use a singular verb, and toss out the ones that don't:

(C) Europe, China, and Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style and
(D) Europe, China, and Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, as it informed his literary style as much as
(E) Europe, China, and Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style in addition to

We can rule out option E because it uses the plural verb "were" with a singular subject, which doesn't agree!

Now that we're left with only 2 options, let's move on to #3 on our list: how they end. We need to make sure the ending makes sense, doesn't distort meaning, and is 100% clear for readers:

(C) Europe, China, and Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style and

This is CORRECT! The modifier "informing both his literary style and..." is clearly modifying the subject "knowledge." It also follows the idiomatic structure "both X and Y" at the end when it says "both his literary style and the content of his fiction."

(D) Europe, China, and Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, as it informed his literary style as much as

This is INCORRECT because it's not written clearly. We have the pronoun "it," which could refer to knowledge or development. Vague pronouns are a major no-no on the GMAT! Also, the word "as" is a problem because it changes the meaning. This sentence is saying that Akutagawa's knowledge helped him develop as a writer at the same time that it informed his literary style and the content of his fiction. This isn't true - he gained the knowledge first, and then it helped make him a better writer!

There you have it - option C is the right choice here! It uses parallel structure, proper subject-verb agreement, and a clearly written modifier!


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.

Ryunosuke Akutagawa‘s knowledge of the literatures of Europe, China, and that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as the content of his fiction.

A. that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as A list has been presented in this sentence - "knowledge of the literatures of x, y, and z". Using "that of" implies that the list is referring to "knowledge of the literatures of x, y, and the literatures of z". This construction is not parallel.

B. that of Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, and it informed his literary style as well as Same as in A

C. Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style and Correct

D. Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, as it informed his literary style as much as It is unclear what "it" refers to

E. Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style in addition to The subject is "knowledge", which is singular. So the plural verb "were" cannot be used.

- Nitha

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning of this sentence is key to solving this question; the intended meaning is that Ryunosuke Akutagawa‘s knowledge of European, Chinese, and Japanese literature was instrumental in his development as a writer because this knowledge informed both his literary style and the content of his fiction.

Concepts tested here: Subject-Verb Agreement + Meaning + Parallelism + Pronouns + Idioms

• All elements in a list must be parallel.
• “both A and B" or "A as well as B" are the correct usages; A and B must be parallel and comparable.
• The introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “informing” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.

A: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun "knowledge" with the plural verb "were". Further, Option A fails to maintain parallelism among "Europe", "China", and "that of Japan"; please remember, all elements in a list must be parallel.

B: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "and it informed his literary style"; the construction of this phrase incorrectly implies that Ryunosuke Akutagawa‘s knowledge of European, Chinese, and Japanese literature was instrumental in his development as a writer, and as a separate action this knowledge informed both his literary style and the content of his fiction; the intended meaning is that Ryunosuke Akutagawa‘s knowledge of European, Chinese, and Japanese literature was instrumental in his development as a writer because this knowledge informed both his literary style and the content of his fiction. Further, Option B fails to maintain parallelism among "Europe", "China", and "that of Japan"; please remember, all elements in a list must be parallel. Additionally, Option B suffers from pronoun ambiguity, as it is unclear whether "it" refers to "knowledge" or "development". Besides, Option B uses the needlessly wordy phrase "as it informed", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

C: Correct. This answer choice correctly refers to the singular noun "knowledge" with the singular verb "was". Further, Option C uses the phrase "informing both his literary style and..."; the use of the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "informing" in this sentence) conveys the intended meaning - that Ryunosuke Akutagawa‘s knowledge of European, Chinese, and Japanese literature was instrumental in his development as a writer because this knowledge informed both his literary style and the content of his fiction; remember, the introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “informing” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship. Additionally, Option C correctly maintains parallelism among "Europe", "China", and "Japan". Option C also avoids the pronoun error seen in Options B and D, as it uses no pronouns. Moreover, Option C correctly uses the idiomatic construction "both A and B". Besides, Option C is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

D: Trap. This answer choice suffers from pronoun ambiguity, as it is unclear whether "it" refers to "knowledge" or "development".

E: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the singular noun "knowledge" with the plural verb "were". Further, Option E incorrectly uses the unidiomatic construction "both A in addition to B"; remember, “both A and B" or "A as well as B" are the correct usages; A and B must be parallel and comparable.

Hence, C is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Comma Plus Present Participle for Cause-Effect Relationship" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~3 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

The answer here is C
"it" in D option is ambiguous
was should be used for singular subject
Japan is correct rather than that of Japan.

Thanks for your reply. However, i think the usage of "it" is perfectly fine over here.

The rule used is, subject pronoun in one clause often refers to a noun in subject position in another parallel clause.

The option D changes the meaning, hence incorrect.

Thanks
H

Note also that (D) is an improperly constructed comparison. We're not sure if "It informed his literary style as much as (it informed) the content of his fiction" or if "it informed his literary style as much as the content of his fiction (informed his literary style."

Verb-ing is is answering here How ... Correct
As works as causal relationship ...I was late to college as it was raining heavily. (sorry but i don't think pronoun ambiguity is a issue as pointed out by others)
Here causal relationship is not there so as is not required.

Just to add As can work -> to show causal relationship( like above)
to show comparison ( as (it is the case) with many other girls, my gf loves shopping ; Ron teaches us english as a school teacher does)
to show simultaneous actions ( As I was crossing the road in the market area , I noticed my GF with a stranger at the coffee center)
to show roles ( As sources of electrical power, windmills now account for only about 2,500 megawatts nationwide)

Picked c.subject knowledge is singular so verb should be was not were and the use of that of japan is wrong with Ryunosuke Akutagawa1s knowledge of the literature of Europe,China and..........it should be "of Europe,China and Japan"According to these error we can eliminate A,B and E.Now rest C and D.D is out because the use of it here is ambiguous .So the correct answer is C.Please inform me if my analysis is wrong

Ryunosuke Akutagawa‘s knowledge of the literatures of Europe, China and that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as the content of his fiction.

a)that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as
Wrong. "that of" + "were" + "as much as" are wrong.

b)that of Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, and it informed his literary style as well as
Wrong. "that of" is wrong.

c)Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style and
Correct. Parallelism + S-v agreement.

d)Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, as it informed his literary style as much as
Wrong. "as much as" is wrong. The use of "it" is not clear. "it" should modify "knowledge", but in this question, "it" modifies "his development".

e)Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style in addition to
Wrong. "were" is wrong.

First of all, follow the rules for posting in verbal section: underline always the question and put as title of the post the first sentence of the same.

Back to your question, I think that your process of thought is quite convoluted.

As soon as you see a question that is partially underlined (that means not completely) unless of a question really super tough you should be able to do a split solely relying your decision on the first word of the underline portion.

Ryunosuke Akutagawa‘s knowledge of the literatures of Europe, China and that of Japan

Here you have 3 things: Europe (1), China (2) AND Japan (3) that have NO SENSE. From this A and B are out in one second.

The subject of the sentence is KNOWLEDGE so is singular and that means the verb is 3rd person singular. As such, you have WAS as tense (were is not possible because here the SC doesn't test you on subjunctive mode that has were in each person)

C and D

D is clearly wrong: it has no a clear antecedent. Moreover, the sentence is quite convoluted and doesn't work; the verb used in the "past" doesn't convey a clear meaning at all. As much as is used for what purpose ??.

C wins.

PS: this is a test in which you have to solve a problem in the most efficient way: quickly and right: even the toughest question could be picked right with 30 minutes at your disposal.

regards

1. that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as
2. that of Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, and it informed his literary style as well as
3. Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style and
4. Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, as it informed his literary style as much as
5. Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style in addition to


Left with 2 , 3 and 4.

2. that of Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, and it informed his literary style as well as

literatures of Europe, China and _______________

Japan must replace the blank space ...

3. Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style and

Looks decent..

4. Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, as it informed his literary style as much as

As much as doesn't fit in here...

Hence clearly (C) IMO is the best..

Hi Rahul,

Thanks for posting your doubt here.

Let's once again take a look at the original sentence:
Ryunosuke Akutagawa‘s knowledge of the literatures of Europe, China and that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as the content of his fiction.

From your analysis, I gather that you are confused about the function of the comma + verb-ing modifier "informing". Here, "informing" modifies the entire preceding clause in that it talks about the "HOW" aspect of the action in the modified clause. His knowledge was instrument in his development ass a writer by informing...

Now this is the part of the sentence that really becomes interesting. Pay attention to this part: his literary style as much as the content of his fiction

The way this part is written in the sentence, we can actually infer TWO comparisons in this sentence:

1. The knowledge informed equally about "his literally style" and "the content of his fiction". The entities compared here are. "his literally style" and "the content of his fiction".
2. His knowledge informed about "his literally style" as much as "the content of his fiction" did. The entities compared here are. "his knowledge" and "the content of his fiction".

So this sentence presents ambiguous meaning. Now lets take a look at the answer choices.

A. that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as: Incorrect. SV number agreement. Parallelism and meaning errors.

B. that of Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, and it informed his literary style as well as. Incorrect.
a. Same Parallelism error as in Choice A.
b. The relation between "the knowledge being instrumental" and "informing" is lost now. The verbs "were instrumental" and "informed" are now two independent verbs now.

C. Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style and: Correct. Use of "and" removed the comparison ambiguity we saw in Choice A.

D. Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, as it informed his literary style as much as: Incorrect. Same comparison ambiguity in Choice A.

E. Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style in addition to: Incorrect. Same SV number agreement and idiom error. The correct idiom is "both X and Y".

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Ryunosuke Akutagawa‘s knowledge of the literatures of Europe, China and that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as the content of his fiction.

1)that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as
2)that of Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, and it informed his literary style as well as
3)Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style and
4)Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, as it informed his literary style as much as
5)Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style in addition to

I have a doubt in the OA, option c.

"both his literary style and the content of his fiction "
In parallelism the Order of appearance of words must be the same.
So how is this parallel ?
Shouldn't it be his literary style and his content of fiction.?
Please explain how is it parallel. Both are phrases but the order is not the same.



2) in option d, the knowledge informed his literary style as much as the content of his fiction is ambiguous.
Is the following statement also ambiguous in the same manner "Rupa loves Sid more than sagar"

Rupa loves Sid more than Rupa loves sagar.
And Rupa loves Sid more than sagar lives sid.

Please help.
Thank u.

Hi Sid,

Thanks for posting your question here.

Let's look at these two "parallel" phrases in Option C: "his literary style" and "the content of his fiction"

1. They are parallel because they both are noun entities. IMHO, these two entities cannot be made identically parallel because "his content of fiction" really does not look very idiomatic. Hence, these two entities are parallel. Also, these two entities appear in the same form in every answer choice. So this form is accepted.

2. Yes, you analysis of Choice D having ambiguous comparison is absolutely correct. Just like in Choice A, in Choice D also, there can be two comparisons:
a. Comparison between "knowledge" and "the content of his fiction".
b. Comparison between "his literally style" and "the content of his fiction".

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
SJ

Thank u sj. And I also wanted to know If the following statement is also ambiguous in the same manner "Rupa loves Sid more than sagar"

Rupa loves Sid more than Rupa loves sagar.
And Rupa loves Sid more than sagar lives sid.

Please help.

Please note that Parallelism does not mean word on word similarity.

With C, the structure would be: informing both his literary style and the content of his fiction.

Both his literary style and the content of his fiction are noun phrases and hence, grammatically similar.

By the way, you have suggested his content of fiction (his modifies content). Meaning-wise, this is different from what is mentioned in the original sentence: content of his fiction (his modifies fiction).


Yes, you might refer to my post here for further explanation on this: https://gmatclub.com/forum/ryunosuke-akutagawa-s-knowledge-of-the-literatures-of-135722.html

Hi Sid,

Yes, the above stated comparison is ambiguous in the same manner. Let’s take a look at the sentence that you have mentioned:

• Rupa loves Sid more than Sagar.

The two possible scenarios are:
1. Rupa loves Sid more than Sagar (does).
Meaning: Rupa loves Sid more than Sagar loves sid.

2. Rupa loves Sid more than (she loves) Sagar.
Meaning: Rupa loves Sid more than she loves Sagar.

Since the sentence conveys an ambiguous meaning, it is incorrect. As shown above, this error is caused by ellipsis.
To learn more about ellipsis in comparison sentences, please refer to the following article:

how-far-ellipsis-is-permissible-in-comparison-148973.html


Hope this helps!
Deepak