Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
08 May 2019, 18:11
Kudos
Bookmarks
AjiteshArun generis VeritasKarishma GMATNinjaTwo
Can I discard C on grounds on verb tense (simple present)
vs E (simple past). I am not too fond eliminating on grounds
of arguing for vs advocating for. Also the parallelism did not get
through my sight in first glance.
Can I discard C on grounds on verb tense (simple present)
vs E (simple past). I am not too fond eliminating on grounds
of arguing for vs advocating for. Also the parallelism did not get
through my sight in first glance.
08 May 2019, 18:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
adkikani
adkikani , you ask a good question.
I would not discard C on the basis of the present verb tense in "a treatise that advocates."
I would find other decision points.
True, the work was written in 1850, but the treatise continues to advocate today whatever it advocated in 1850.
It's a book.
You are correct to be wary of the simple present, though; this sentence is more about the history of what one politically active woman did a long time ago than it is about the timeless content of the book.
You do not have to decide the split presented by arguing for and advocating (no for) . . . as long as you read the whole sentence.
In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women and for changes in the married women’s property laws.
The bolded part of the sentence (which is also the non-underlined part) contains the parallelism marker AND.
The RHS of the parallel structure opens with FOR.
The LHS must also do so.
(If the RHS of a parallel structure contains a preposition, the LHS must contain one, too.
If the LHS of a parallel structure contains a preposition, though, the RHS may or may not contain that preposition.)
Only option E remains.
08 May 2019, 19:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
adkikani
I don't think that the present tense is wrong. After all, we could just be discussing something that is generally true about the "treatise".
However, let's take another look at the for. The problem here is not (just) parallelism. It's idiomatic usage. Option C is "advocates A and for B" (C uses advocates as a verb).
1. Someone advocates something. ← Here advocates is a verb. This is fine.
2. Someone advocates for something. ← When we use advocate as a verb, we don't use a for after it.
3. Someone is an advocate for something. ← We can use for after advocate when advocate is a noun.
Advocate (verb) + for is becoming more and more common in informal usage these days, but we should keep in mind that this question is more than 10 years old.
There is another (reasonably good) way to take C out. Take a look at the way the idea around rights has been conveyed in C:
a treatise that advocates women’s equal political and legal rights
Women’s equal political and legal rights is not as good as equal political and legal rights for women. Look at it this way: we can say women's rights (the rights that women have or should have) and we can say equal rights for women. However, we don't really want to combine the two and say "women's equal rights". That is a much less precise way to communicate the intended meaning, and is nowhere near as common as equal rights for women.
