The beautiful cello solo at the end of the symphony may have

E introduces contrast, while A introduces explanation. The sentence should make sense as to why the Cello solo salvaged the Performance.

Hi Experts,
Can you please explain why C is incorrect? Doesn't it indicate towards the situation that 'most of the orchestra members played poorly throughout the two hour concert' ?

Text says that the cello performance was at the end; not at the same time as the performance of the orchestra members- There is a meaning change in C

A. for most of the orchestra members performed poorly throughout the two hour concert. Succint and the only one the conveys the meaning.
B. in that most of the orchestra members performed throughout the two hour concert in a poor manner. in that doesn't convey the meaning and is awkward.
C. When most of the orchestra members performed poorly throughout the two hour concert. implies that at a certain point in time when the other members were performing poorly, the cello solo did well.
D. despite most of the orchestra members performing poorly throughout the two hour concert. Implies that despite the others performing poorly, the cello was able to do a great job. This means that the cello was able to perform well even though the remaining crew's poor performance was expected to perhaps distract the cello performers. Subtle change in meaning that makes this incorrect.
E. even though most of the orchestra members made a poor performance throughout the two hour concert. Similar to D....this implies that even though the others screwed up, the cello performers did well, as if the other's screwing up would generally impact the cello performers negatively.

The beautiful cello solo at the end of the symphony may have salvaged the performance, for most of the orchestra members played poorly throughout the two hour concert.

A. for most of the orchestra members performed poorly throughout the two hour concert. - CORRECT - Usage of "for" is correct here

B. in that most of the orchestra members performed throughout the two hour concert in a poor manner. - incorrect usage of "in that" and wordy for "poor performance"

C. When most of the orchestra members performed poorly throughout the two hour concert. - "when" is modifying performance, and is incorect

D. despite most of the orchestra members performing poorly throughout the two hour concert. - “despite most members performing poorly” is incorrect as it should be “despite the poor performance by...”

E. even though most of the orchestra members made a poor performance throughout the two hour concert. - “made a poor performance” is an unidiomatic and awkward way of saying performed poorly.

Hence, Answer is A

Dear AnthonyRitz AjiteshArun IanStewart GMATGuruNY DmitryFarber VeritasPrepBrian ccooley MartyTargetTestPrep GMATNinja,

Q1. Why is choice B. wrong?
"in that" is correct idiom (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/in%20that)

Q2. Why is choice C. wrong?
According to Merriam Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/when), "when" means

Q3. Why is choice E. wrong? Because of unidiomatic expression?

kornn

This is what I found (by @prasi55)

"In that" is typically used when you have a general class of items/people and wish to emphasise attributes that are representative of that class or group.

For example. Humans are mammals in that they are warm-blooded. The latter part "they are warm-blooded" is a fact that is "representative" of all mammals. The portion following "in that" thus answers "in what way" humans are mammals.

Hi Experts

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma EducationAisle ChrisLele mikemcgarry AjiteshArun egmat sayantanc2k RonPurewal DmitryFarber MagooshExpert avigutman EMPOWERgmatVerbal MartyTargetTestPrep ExpertsGlobal5 IanStewart
other experts AnthonyRitz

What's the difference between A and D. I was confused between A and D but at last chose D as the answer.

Reasoning for D is - I thought sentence must talk about the "symphony may have salvaged the performance" for the overall orchestra performed and not for the individual members.

Can you please explain the reason?

The word "for" in this sentence is used as a conjunction meaning "because" and not as a preposition with the sense in which you described it.

The performance needed to be salvaged because the other orchestra members performed badly.

That said, the logic of this does feel slightly strange to me. The poor performances of the other orchestra members explain why the performance needed salvaging more so than why or how the solo actually did salvage things. So I don't love A... but there's often something you don't love in a right answer in 700-level sentence correction. I can live with this if we're not able to do better with any other answer.

...And no other answer works, in the end. In particular, the "fused participle" structure of D ("most of the orchestra members performing poorly") is incredibly difficult to read, awkward, and confusing. It's almost impossible to understand what's modifying what, or even what the actual noun is here. That's my biggest problem with that answer.

Here's the New York Times briefly discussing this issue: https://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com ... -with-ing/
Here's another guide on the problematic structure: https://style.mla.org/fused-participle/

Google "fused participle" for a lot more on why the structure is often problematic.

In the end, it's not my favorite Veritas question, but, yeah, I'd pick A.

Dear AnthonyRitz

Thank you very much for the links. I enjoyed them.

I would be grateful if you could help clarify my doubts about “may have salvaged” ?

I went through several grammar websites and found out that these days “may have done” and “might have done” can be used interchangeably – that is, “may have done” can be used to talk about past events or situations that were possible but did not happen, and hence my confusion.

So, which of the following does the first clause mean?

1. There was a beautiful solo at the end, and there is a probability that it salvaged the performance.

2. There wasn’t a beautiful solo at the end, but if there were one, it could salvage the performance. Similar to “Tom didn’t come to the party. He may have made it more interesting.”

In both cases, choice A seems to make no sense. It doesn’t explain anything in them. However, choice E could work if the first meaning above is true.

E seems to say that even though the first two hours were bad, there is still probability that the solo saved the performance. What is wrong with this meaning?

Hello Vatsal7794,

We hope this finds you well.

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, in this sentence "for" is a conjunction that illustrates a cause-effect relationship. By contrast, "despite" is a conjunction that conveys contrast; thus, Option D completely alters the meaning f the sentence.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Hello JonShukhrat,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can resolve your doubts.

The intended meaning of this sentence is that there was a beautiful solo at the end, and there is a probability that it salvaged the performance because most of the orchestra members performed poorly throughout the two hour concert. This construction is a bit awkward, but what the sentence is trying to convey is that the solo may have salvaged the performance, and the performance was in a position to be salvaged because most of the orchestra members performed poorly throughout the two hour concert.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Yep, I second this. The meaning here is that the beautiful cello solo definitely happened, and it maybe/probably was enough to salvage the performance overall. I don't see anything illogical or nonsensical about this.

The problem with E is (unfortunately) just the weird, unidiomatic "made a poor performance" (as opposed to the superior "performed poorly"). I don't like having to rely on that, but here we are anyway... Told you it wasn't my favorite Veritas question!

Can someone give an elaborate explaination why E is incorrect?