Hello,
bhayanakmaut. Since you have created a list of numbered questions, I will respond inline below.
bhayanakmaut wrote:
AndrewN KarishmaB GMATNinja Can you please help? I have several doubts regarding POE here.
1. Is separating "until almost 1900" by a comma wrong in A?
There is no inherent (grammatical) problem with placing such a phrase ahead of the main clause and using a comma, but in terms of what the sentence means to convey, there is a tug-of-war going on between the lengthy dependent clause that begins the sentence and the main clause that follows. For reference:
Quote:
Although various eighteenth and nineteenth-century American poets had professed an interest in Native American poetry and had pretended to imitate Native American forms in their own works, until almost 1900, scholars and critics did not begin seriously to study traditional Native American poetry in native languages.
If the original sentence were spoken, I could see a "down" inflection indicating that the phrase paired with the dependent clause, almost as an afterthought:
Although... poets had professed an interest... and had pretended something, until almost 1900...Meanwhile, if the sentence were spoken with an "up" inflection, it would be clear that the same phrase was intended to preface the main clause:
Although... until almost 1900, scholars and critics...A reader should not have to puzzle over which interpretation to pursue, even momentarily. A better iteration of the sentence would be clearer.
bhayanakmaut wrote:
2. Is there really some ambiguity about what "1900" refers to in B? Whether it refers to the year or the no. of scholars?
I would say the ambiguity is similar to the meaning issue we identified above. Yes, without a comma,
until almost 1900 scholars and critics can easily lead the reader to believe that people are being counted, especially in the absence of the original sentence. It would probably not be until reading a bit deeper into the sentence that the reader would pause, reflect, and decide that the
pink interpretation from above was intended. Once again, a sentence that is well constructed should avoid hindering the reader.
bhayanakmaut wrote:
3. Is "began studying" better than "began to study"?
I could see either verb form working in such a context and would not use this consideration to separate one answer choice from another.
bhayanakmaut wrote:
4. Is it wrong to use past perfect in the second clause, which refers to pre 1900, because past perfect has already been used in the first clause?
It would not make sense to use the past perfect in the main clause, because then the entire sentence would be written in the past perfect, for no apparent reason. Remember, we generally see the past perfect used in a sentence to refer to an action that occurred further in the past than an action that is reported in the simple past tense. There is no compelling reason to make everything fit a
had + verb form. It would achieve nothing in the way of clarity for the reader.
You should be seeing a consistent message here. Clarity of meaning improves a sentence. Whether lengthy or terse, a sentence should be relatively simple to grasp.
Thank you for thinking to ask, and good luck with your studies.
- Andrew