The paradox of the Roman empires history is marked by the

(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
Unparallel; no - by - before the rise

(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
Unparallel; no - by - before the rise

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

-several regions succumbed…… and broke- is not parallel to - empire fire-walled the crises to retake – The first part is using two simple past tenses namely succumbed and broke while the latter is using a simple past and an infinitive – fire-walled and to retake. IMO, this error downgrades C

(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

The prepositional phrase - with several regions succumbing to cross border terrorism and internal insurgency and breaking into independent kingdoms – is perfectly matched by an equally parallel - with the empire fire -walling the crises, and retaking - both parts using present participles with vantag
This is why this is the OA.

(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
Structurally flawed and fragmented without conjunction

Thanks to those brave hearts who have given us great insight into their thinking and I regard those opinions.
_________________

Added an image of how I'm studying the structure in a word document. Figured it may help some.

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 parallel
Paradox 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 meaning
Paradox 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

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
Wrong.
- "breaking" || succumbing ==> There must be "and" before "breaking, but it's not the case here.
- Should have "by" before "the rise of....."

(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
Wrong.
- "by the rise" || "by the fall" (non-underlined part) ==> "and the rising" is wrong.

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
Wrong. Changes meaning by using "to retake" wrongly. The original meaning is the empire fire-walled the crises and retook most of the lost territories to establish a firm rule

(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
Correct.
- "by the fall........with......." || "by the rise........with........"

(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
Wrong. Parallelism problem.

Hope it helps.

Actually two tenses are being considered in the given statement.

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

I) One is present tense as you have highlighted. i.e. "The paradox of the Roman empire’s history is marked....." Here "Marking" is done at present. Therefore, it has present tense is.
II) Now again, the event of "marking" is done based on two past events. These past events are represented by "by" word in option D. That is, The paradox of the Roman empire’s history is marked by X, and by Y. Where X= the fall of the western part around the 5th centaury A.D, with X1
Y=the rise of the eastern part, with Y1.

In option D, both X1 and Y1 are parallel, using past tense.

Hope this helps

Now this is interesting question. The OA is D but I choose C.
As I try to understand what went wrong, I figure the following:

Q) The paradox of the Roman empire’s history is marked by the fall of the western part around the 5th century A.D with several regions succumbing to cross border terrorism and internal insurgency,AND breaking into independent kingdoms, AND BYthe 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

The paradox of blah blah is marked by ABC with type1 blah and blah and type2 blah, and by XYZ with type3 blah and blah...



(D) with several regions type1 blahsuccumbing to cross border terrorism and internal insurgency and type2 blahbreaking into independent kingdoms, and XYZby the rise of the eastern part, with the empire type3 blahfire -walling the crises, and retaking


IMO D is indeed the correct answer.

List 1: "the fall of.... kingdoms"
List 2: "the rise of...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
Incorrect: list 1 and list 2 are not separated by parallel marker "and". Also all the verbs should be in simple past.

(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
Incorrect. "the fall of ..." is not parallel to "the rising of.."

(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
Correct. List 1 is parallel to List 2 separated by "and". Also "where" correctly modifies "eastern part"

(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
Incorrect. wrong tense for main verbs.

(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
Incorrect. wrong tense for main verbs.

The paradox is marked by the fall of western part and rise of eastern part.
these parts need to be parallel.

In the given sentence there is no conjunction which shows the parallelism between fall and rise and breaks into a series of phrases.
5th century is in past tense and sentence needs to be in verb-ed form and with verb-ing phrases are improper here.
hence A is incorrect.

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
the rising of the eastern part spoiles the sentence here and breaks the rule of parallelism mentioned above.
as regions succumbed does not make sense here as when is needed to refer time phrase.

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
correct choice as All errors are resolved.

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
parallelism is correct here but with and verb-ing errors as in A repeat here.

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
amid incorrectly refers to time period here.
it is the regions that broke into kingdoms because of terrorism and insurgency not insurgency itself.
verb-ing error repeats here.

Mechmeera

Yes because when a verb+ing form is used without an auxiliary verb, then it is acting a present participle and present participle or past participles are tenseless verbal words. Verb+ ed or the past participle can appear in present tense clauses, and verb+ ing or the present particles can appear in past tense clauses

To wit:
Viewed by millions of people, cricket is a popular game in India. Here ‘viewed’ is a past participle appearing in a present tense sentence.

Sailing a long distance from Spain, a resolute Columbus landed in one of the Caribbean islands in the latter part of 1492. – Here the present participle ‘sailing’ is effectively used in a past event.
Look at this: The subtle satires of Wodehouse often included the utter stupidity of Earldom, masquerading for snobbishness --- Here also, ‘masquerading’ is used in a past tense sentence.

However this happens only when these verbals are used in modification contexts.

You can also look at the following examples, how these participles become parts of tensed sentences with the help of an auxiliary verb
Carrying – present participle
is carrying --- present progressive
was carrying – past progressive
will be carrying --- future progressive

crossed--- may be past tense or past participle without a tense
is crossed--- past participle in a present tense context
was crossed --- past participle in a past tense context and so on.

So the present participles in choice A are appropriate according to me.
_________________

daagh
(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
Within option d we are using "with the empire fire -walling the crises, and retaking" -> comma+and
-> The reason why i choose c over d is that we can't use comma+and in connecting list as this one. We use comma+and to join 2 ICs and compound sentences when the 2 verbs belonging to same subject are in separate clauses.

So can you/someone please correct the option d.
Thanks

manishtank1988
The use of the serial comma in a list is becoming a contentious issue these days. Many great names such as MGMAT have said that this is not a very serious issue if it aids clarity. Some others like VERITAS contend that one should look at the larger picture and pass trivia. IMO, the breaking of parallelism in C is more worrisome than the use of a comma before 'and' in D
_________________

With specific reference to the structure ' preposition +noun+ verbing' --Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

(A) requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect

(B) requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

(C) that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect

(D) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting

(E) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
B

Here is yet another official question that deviates from the perception, probably as an exception.

<https://gmatclub.com/forum/last-week-local-shrimpers-held-a-news-conference-to-take-some-credit-f-76039.html>
_________________

The author composed this question in 2010 at that time the Author believed that D is the answer.
Check this:

the-paradox-of-the-roman-empires-history-is-marked-by-the-103160.html#p802806

Few years down the line in 2014 the author re-posts the same question but this time the author believes that the answer is C.
Please check this :
one-question-a-day-q-22-sc-169421.html

So

Look at choice B, the OA in this official question, approving " of experiments investigating".
Does GMAT consider this 'prepostion+noun+verbing" as such a generally incorrect structure as you have indicated? Or is it more contextual or meaning based? For example, one might argue as to how experiments can investigate as only interpreters or analysts can do that. However, if GMAT could accept it, why shouldn't we?
Incidentally, is there any specific reason for calling the said structure as incorrect?
_________________

https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-idio ... nsequence/, according to Magoosh, the rule in the picture file should work.

Also, according to Kaplan, test takers should avoid V-ing as much as possible.

Can someone please explain when is it appropriate to use 'with'? Some examples will help. Thanks.

The paradox of the Roman empire’s history is marked by the fall of the western part around the 5th century A.D, with several regions succumbing to cross border terrorism and internal insurgency and breaking into independent kingdoms, and by [...] .

"with several regions succumbing to cross border terrorism and internal insurgency and breaking into independent kingdoms" -- absolute participle clause (APC) which play an adverbial role from grammatical point of view. You may replace this adverbial clause with another one as I did below.

The paradox of the Roman empire’s history is marked by the fall of the western part around the 5th century A.D because several regions were succumbing to cross border terrorism and internal insurgency and breaking into independent kingdoms and by [...] .

APC is basically used in literature/officials, not in spoken language.

(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
After kingdom there is lack of clarity in the briding there is incompleteness induced through the absence of a connectoe like and

(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
Insurgency was never broken into independent states but rather it was the reason the states were broken into several parts

(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
Same trouble as B presists here and the final sentence is ambigious

(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
Yes our choice has all the problems solved and even the tenses are perfect and makes absoulte sense

(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
The same same problems as stated in B and C

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________