lakshya14 wrote:
huntgmat wrote:
Beatrix Potter, in her book illustrations, carefully coordinating them with her narratives, capitalized on her keen observation and love of the natural world.
(A) Beatrix Potter, in her book illustrations, carefully coordinating them with her narratives,
(B) In her book illustrations, carefully coordinating them with her narratives, Beatrix Potter
(C) In her book illustrations, which she carefully coordinated with her narratives, Beatrix Potter
(D) Carefully coordinated with her narratives, Beatrix Potter, in her book illustrations
(E) Beatrix Potter, in her book illustrations, carefully coordinated them with her narratives and
Hi Guys, I have difficulty to understand the
OG explanation for elimination of option E.
It says: "them cannot refer back to book illustrations as it is object of the preposition in" ???? What does it exactly mean.
Is it some kind of rule , I hunted on net with faliure.
In (A), is it valid to take the antecedent of "them" as "book illustration", since its just a modifier and not a part of the structure of the sentence?
In (B), can the "carefully coordinating them with her narratives" be a double modifier of "Beatrix Potter" despite it has "ing" verb which generally modifies the subject of the previous clause, but sometimes as the opening modifier?
In (E) what's wrong?
AndrewNHello,
lakshya14. I will get straight to your questions. In (A), yes,
them must refer to
book illustrations, since no other reasonable plural noun appears in the sentence (not even the potential compound subject in
her keen observation and love of the natural world). Thus, you can interpret (A) as,
Beatrix Potter, in her book illustrations, carefully coordinating her book illustrations with her narratives...That is most unsatisfying, I think you will agree. Why not just say that Beatrix Potter carefully coordinated her book illustrations with her narratives?
In (B), again, yes, you might want to think of
carefully coordinating them with her narratives as a modifier of the noun that follows, namely the author herself, but double-stacked introductory phrases are often a telltale sign of a poorly written sentence in GMAT™ world, not to mention that the -ing modifier reaches backward and forward at the same time—we still need to refer back to
her illustrations to qualify
them, but we are left in suspense until we jump across the comma and reach
Beatrix Potter. In short, (B) is just as much of a mess as (A).
Finally, (E) places this
in her book illustrations in a tight spot. It seems to be an aside, non-essential information that is roped off by commas, but then we get
carefully coordinated them after the second comma. The sentence logically reads,
Beatrix Potter, in her book illustrations, carefully coordinated her book illustrations with her narratives and...Why would the sentence need to mention
her book illustrations twice to express the vital meaning? (C) is the only answer choice that sidesteps this major stylistic flaw. By adopting an introductory phrase, relative clause, main clause structure, it presents the information in a clear and direct manner (no repetitions needed).
I hope that addresses your concerns. Thank you for thinking to ask.
- Andrew