adkikani wrote:
AjiteshArun generis VeritasKarishma GMATNinjaTwoCan 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.
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.
_________________
—The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance. ~Einstein—I stand with Ukraine.
Donate to Help Ukraine!