Harshgmat wrote:
Harshgmat , I agree. Nice catch.
We have two slightly different versions of this question.
The version on this thread is introduced in green typeface.The version on the other thread is introduced in blue typeface.I think that
this version of the question has two answers, C and D.
•
I think this version of the question has two answers: C and DThe word "eventually" in option (D) signals the correct logical sequence.
• The (D) options in both questions are identical.
The other question has a long explanation, some of which is quoted below. D is the answer to the other question.
(C) in the other question is slightly different from this thread's (C)
(C) in the other thread is clearly wrong. No question.
On THIS topic thread, I see no reason to prefer C over D.
True, participial modifiers do not carry tense, but "his army
eventually suffering" indicates the future.
Hooker's loss of nerve and choice of defensive posture caused his army eventually to suffer.
The other thread's version of the question, HERE is: aragonn wrote:
Gen. Joseph Hooker initially had seized the advantage at the Battle of Chancellorsville, and he had had an army twice the size of Gen. Lee's Confederates, but having lost his nerves, he had settled into a more defensive posture, and his army eventually was suffering a humiliating defeat.
A. Hooker initially had seized the advantage at the Battle of Chancellorsville, and he had had an army twice the size of Gen. Lee's Confederates, but having lost his nerves, he had settled into a more defensive posture, and his army eventually was suffering
B. Hooker at the Battle of Chancellorsville seized initially the advantage, and he had an army twice as big as Gen. Lee's Confederates, but his nerves were lost, and he settled into a more defensive posture, and his army eventually would suffer
C. Hooker, initially seizing the advantage at the Battle of Chancellorsville, had an army twice as big as Gen. Lee's Confederates, and he lost his nerve and settled into a more defensive posture, so that his army eventually would suffer (different from this thread's version, and in this version, incorrect)
D. Hooker initially seized the advantage at the Battle of Chancellorsville, but despite having an army twice the size of Gen. Lee's Confederates, he lost his nerve and settled into a more defensive posture, his army eventually suffering
E. Hooker initially seized the advantage at the Battle of Chancellorsville and he had an army twice the size of Gen. Lee's Confederates, but despite this, he lost his nerve, settling into a more defensive posture, and his army eventually suffered
Between C and D: Official explanation BY MIKE MCGARRY for the question from the other threadQuote:
Choice (C): What most striking about this version is the lack of contrast. We are told that Hooker “seized the advantage” and he had an army “twice the size” of his enemy’s army—these fact suggest things were going very well for him. Then the word “and,” and we are told that he lost his nerve and lost the battle. Wait! That’s a huge turnaround, and we never had a contrast word. If the “and” before “he lost his nerve” had been a “but,” this version would be better, but it’s too illogical without a proper contrast work. Finally, the phrasing of the last clause suggest that it was Hooker's purpose to make his army lose the battle—that's also illogical! This version is incorrect.
Choice (D): this version sets up appropriate logical contrasts that mirror the content. The end of this sentence is an absolute phrase, a perfectly correct structure.
The version of the question on THIS threadBunuel wrote:
Gen. Joseph Hooker initially seized the advantage at the Battle of Chancellorsville, but despite having an army twice the size of Gen. Lee's confederates, he lost his nerve and settled into a more defensive posture, with the result that his army would suffer a humiliating defeat.
A. with the result that his army would suffer
B. eventually with his army suffering
C. and as a result, his army eventually would suffer (not the same as the other option C)
D. his army eventually suffering
E. which eventually caused his army to suffer
Quote:
The focus of the sentence is what we might call the "set-up" or initial phases of the
Battle of Chancellorsville. (BTW, that entire Wikipedia article would be an excellent example of something you could read for practice!!) The time period on which the sentence focuses is the beginning of this battle, so from that perspective, the end of the battle would be something in the future. If a "fortune teller" had met Gen. Hooker at the beginning of the battle, this fortune teller might have told him "
Your army will suffer a humiliating defeat." From that particular time, the defeat would have been in the future. Since the time on which the sentence is focused is in the past, the future of that past event, which is now another past event, is denoted with "
would."
Something appears to be wrong.
This version could be the edited version of the other thread's question.
Maybe the word "eventually" was supposed to have been removed from option D for this thread's version.
MagooshExpert ,
would you please have a look at the two versions of this question?Once again, the full OE for the other question in which D is identical to this D and correct in that answer
HEREIf option C is a better answer than option D for this thread's version of the question,
would you please explain why?
GMATNinja or
GMATNinja2 -- thoughts?
close
12 Oct 2017, 00:48
80%
(01:30)
wrong 
I'm happy to help you. 
