In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a

A> The construction is “arguing”+”in a treatise…” or participle + prepositional phrase. Or simply, it’s a participial phrase. Now, the participial phrase most likely modifies the subject, which is “Lucretia Mott”. Now the question is - Is Lucretia Mott arguing or is the argument in her book? When we look at the phrase “arguing in a treatise” , it is apparent that Lucretia is not arguing. Also, to+be construction is wordy. Be watchful

B> Same as above. The participial phrase as a modifier is not doing the justice.

C> An appositive “a treatise that..” is fixing the above problem. But it is introducing another problem. “a treatise that advocates women’s equal political and legal rights and for changes in the married women's property laws”. It is important to understand the construction of appositive. An appositive could be simply noun or noun+modifier. Here, we can write - a treatise (noun) that that advocates women’s equal political and legal rights (relative or adjective clause) and (a treatise) for changes in the married women's property laws (prepositional phrase). As you can see, a treatise for changes in the married women's property laws (prepositional phrase) does not make any sense. To correct this, we need (a treatise) that advocates for changes in the married women's property laws (adjective clause)
D> It is having the same problem as C. A treatise for changes in the married women's property laws (prepositional phrase) does not make any sense.
E> This answer choice fixed both problem. It introduced appositive correctly. Also, a parallelism is established with two prepositional phrases “for equal political and legal rights for women” and “for changes in the married women's property laws” that are modifying verb “argue” and act as a adverbial modifier

Consider a Kudos if you find this explanation helpful

Hello Everyone!

Let's take a closer look at this question and determine the best way to tackle it! Before we dive in, here is the original question with the major differences in each option highlighted in orange:

In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights and for changes in the married women’s property laws.

A. arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights
B. arguing in a treatise for equal political and legal rights for women
C. a treatise that advocates women’s equal political and legal rights
D. a treatise advocating women’s equal political and legal rights
E. a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women

After a quick glance over the options, we see a couple things we can focus on:

1. "arguing in a treatise" vs. "a treatise" (Modifiers)
2. "for women..." / "for equal..." / "women's equal..." (Parallelism)

Let's start with #1 on our list: modifiers! We know that the modifier should be modifying "Discourse on Women." What is Discourse on Women? A treatise! So the modifier that comes directly after the title should tell us what it is - it's a treatise, not an argument! Let's see how the options break down:

A. arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights
B. arguing in a treatise for equal political and legal rights for women
C. a treatise that advocates women’s equal political and legal rights
D. a treatise advocating women’s equal political and legal rights
E. a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women

We can eliminate options A & B because they are trying to make the modifier pair up with Mott and not the title of the treatise itself, which is what it should be modifying!

Now that we're left with 3 options, let's move on to #2: parallelism! There are 2 things that the treatise argues for:

1. equal political and legal rights for women
2. changes in married women's property laws

BOTH items need to be written using parallel structure. This means they need to use similar verb tenses, structure, wording, etc. Let's see which of the remaining options uses parallel structure. To make this easier to spot, I've added in the rest of the sentence so you can clearly see both items that need to be parallel:

C. a treatise that advocates women’s equal political and legal rights and for changes in the married women’s property laws. --> NOT PARALLEL
D. a treatise advocating women’s equal political and legal rights and for changes in the married women’s property laws. --> NOT PARALLEL
E. a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women and for changes in the married women’s property laws. --> PARALLEL

There you have it - option E is the correct choice! The modifier clearly refers to the right thing, and it uses parallel structure!


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.
_________________

Correct Sentence:

In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women

The structure of the correct sentence, which is (E), is as follows:

The phrase beginning with 'a treatise...' is an adjectival phrase modifying Discourse on Women.

Also, a 'treaty', or any document for that matter, can 'argue'.

e.g. The Declaration of Independence argued for the preeminence of men's freedom over the whimsies of tyranny.


Hope that helps .
_________________

See the non-underlined part:

In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, ... and for changes in the married women’s property laws.

So whatever comes before 'and' is something else the treatise argues for. The two should be parallel.
So we are between (B) and (E).

(B) is incorrect because 'a treatise' is not connected to 'Discourse on Women' and the reader is left wondering whether they are the same. The link is not clear.

(E) clearly tells us that 'Discourse on Women' is the treatise and what it does.

Also, a book/a paper/a treatise can certainly suggest/argue etc. It is common, acceptable usage and we don't need to take it literally.
_________________

This question is based on Construction.

Options A and B are in the form of a participle modifier that seems to modify ‘Lucretia Mott’. So, the options state that Mott argues in a treatise. This modifier ignores the name of the treatise “Discourse on Women” completely and implies that Mott published one work and argued in another work. This meaning is illogical, so Option and B can be eliminated.

Options C, D, and E are in the form of an absolute modifier that gives more information about ‘Discourse on Women’. This modifier also mentions the two things that the treatise advocated – equal political and legal rights for women and changes in the married women’s property laws. These two things must have a similar structure.

In Option C, the two things aren’t in a parallel structure. “Women’s equal political and legal rights” is not parallel to “changes in the married women’s property laws”. The structure of the latter, which is also part of the non-underlined portion of the sentence, is noun (changes) + preposition (in) + noun (property laws). The structure of the former is noun +apostrophe + s + noun. So, Option C can be ruled out because of the lack of parallelism.

Option D has the same lack of parallelism. So, Option D can also be ruled out.

In Option E, the two things are parallel. In this option, the first item in the list is also in the same structure as the second - noun (rights) + preposition (for) + noun (women). Therefore, E is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended core meaning of this sentence is that Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, which is a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Verb Forms + Parallelism

• Any elements joined by a conjunction ("and" in this sentence) must be parallel.
• The simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.
• In modifying a noun the present participle implies that the noun took an action that is present and continuous in nature in any time period.
• The introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “arguing” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
• The infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb - "have" in this sentence) is the preferred construction for referring to the purpose/intent of an action.

A: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrases "arguing in a treatise" and "to have equal political and legal rights"; the use of the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing"- “arguing” in this case)" construction and infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb - "have" in this sentence) incorrectly implies that Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, and in doing so argued for women for the purpose of having equal political and legal rights; the intended meaning is that Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, and it is a treatise that argued in favor of equal political and legal rights for women; please remember, the introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “arguing” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship and the infinitive verb form ("to + base form of verb - "have" in this sentence) is the preferred construction for referring to the purpose/intent of an action.

B: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "arguing in a treatise" the use of the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing"- “arguing” in this case)" construction incorrectly implies that Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, and in doing so argued for equal political and legal rights for women; the intended meaning is that Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, and it is a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women; please remember, the introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “arguing” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship

C: This answer choice fails to maintain parallelism between "women’s equal political and legal rights" and "for changes in the married women’s property laws"; please remember, any elements joined by a conjunction ("and" in this sentence) must be parallel.

D: This answer choice fails to maintain parallelism between "women’s equal political and legal rights" and "for changes in the married women’s property laws"; please remember, any elements joined by a conjunction ("and" in this sentence) must be parallel. Further, Option D incorrectly uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "arguing" in this sentence) to refer to an event that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past, and in modifying a noun the present participle implies that the noun took an action that is present and continuous in nature in any time period.

E: Correct. This answer choice modifies "Discourse on Women" with the phrase "a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women", conveying the intended meaning - that Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, and it is a treatise that argued in favor of equal political and legal rights for women. Further, Option E correctly uses the simple past tense verb "argued" to refer to an event that concluded in the past. Additionally, Option E correctly maintains parallelism between "for equal political and legal rights for women" and "for changes in the married women’s property laws".

Hence, E is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Comma + Present Participle for Cause-Effect Relationship" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~3 minutes):



To understand the concept of "Infinitive vs Present Participles" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a treatise for
women to have equal political and legal rights and for changes in the married women’s
property laws.

A. arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights
X published a book, arguing ... something. This is wrong for me as the meaning can stand as book was published while she was arguing !
B. arguing in a treatise for equal political and legal rights for women
Same as A. Guys ( please any Guru ) please advice for the same, I don't think I am confident in my explanation
C. a treatise that advocates women’s equal political and legal rights
[ Not parallel ]
D. a treatise advocating women’s equal political and legal rights
[ Not parallel ]
E. a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women
Correct. Happy to see a for in both sides.

‘Discourse on women’ is the title of Mott’s publication comprising her speeches. This publication is a called a treatise that gives information about what the publication contains and as such, it is an appositive modifier of ‘Discourse on Women
_________________

IMO the answer is E.

A and B : arguing..... is a verb-ing modifier modifying the preceding clause. Verb-ing modifier after the clause must tell additional information about the clause or present the result of the preceding clause. However, in A and B arguing... is not providing any information about the action of publishing. Also no result of the preceding clause is presented. hence option A and B are wrong. C and D are out due to parallelism issue. option E corrects the anomaly

Hi folks ,

I would like to have more clarity on why option (B) is not in the RACE.

-Ing forms can be used in 4 ways :

Noun(Gerund)
Verb(Prog. tense)
ADJ ( The CAT SLEEPING on floor is ill)
ADVERB(X published article,mentioning all important facts)

So LM PUBLISHED her discourse, and in the act of publish "ARGUING"......

Plz Advice

Rgds,
TGC

Hi TGC,
You are perfectly right, ING form over here is actually used to modify LM, however that is not the error here.
Error is what happens after that.
"in a treatise for women" a treatise is a formal document for some cause(here for women rights) it doesn't make sense saying "arguing in a treatise for women to have " it could have been arguing in her treatise, the construction is similar to say..for eg, "i am arguing in a book to have more rights for poor kids." I am not actually(Physically) arguing in a book. I could have said, arguing for poor kids in my book, I sought rights for poor kids. or some construction similar to that.
Let me know if that helps..

In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights and for changes in the married women’s property laws.

A. arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights
its seems that Mott is arguing
B. arguing in a treatise for equal political and legal rights for women
its seems that Mott is arguing
C. a treatise that advocates women’s equal political and legal rights
Parallelism error
D. a treatise advocating women’s equal political and legal rights
Parallelism error
E. a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women
Correct
For equal political and legal rights is parallel with for changes in the ...
_________________

This question had bothered me long before I figured out why it is being said that Lucretia Mott is doing two things, although with casual read one feels its one thing.

I think the most important thing to notice here is the presence of article "a" before treatise. If we were to refer to Discourse on Women then the article should have been "the", which would mean we are referring to Discourse on Women. So the sentence then should have been "arguing in the treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights


Hope this helps....

Kudos if my post has helped you.

First of all look for parallelism. " for changes in property laws " is similar to "for equal political and legal rights for women".

This brings us down to B & E.

In B , "arguing in a treatise" creates a confusion as it looks to refer not to "Discourse on Women" but to something else . Shows 2 different entities.

But in E the treatise clearly modifies the Discourse.

E it is.

We can observe 2-3 split easily here.
Arguing and for changes are not parallel thereby violating parallelism.
Arguing in a treatise does not modify Discourse on Women instead appears that the argument is a result of Mott publishing the treatise.

Due to above reasons options A and B are not valid.

Option C is not right because that advocates and for changes are not parallel.

Option D is not right for the same reason of parallelism as in option c i.e., a treatise advocating is not parallel to for changes.

Option E is the right answer as A treatise correctly modifies Discourse on Women and for equal and sth is parallel to for changes.

Hello,

E should be the correct answer and here is how I approached it:

In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights and for changes in the married women’s property laws.

From the question stem - We know that the following phrase should define the noun ' Discourse on women'. This is our biggest clue.
With this in mind, we will see the best option:

A. arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights The phrase doesn't define our noun properly. Clearly a publication cannot argue! Wrong

B. arguing in a treatise for equal political and legal rights for women Again, doesnt define the noun properly, Wrong

C. a treatise that advocates women’s equal political and legal rights Defines the noun clearly but doesnt follow the parallel structure from the question stem "for changes"

D. a treatise advocating women’s equal political and legal rights Same as above;

E. a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women - This option defines the noun clearly and also follows the parallel structure of the sentence. Correct

Hope this was helpful

Instead of getting in jargons, the question can be resolved in a simpler manner. After the comma, ‘treatise’ is preferred because it is synonymous to ‘discourse’. So, we are left with C,D and E. Now in both C and D, you have 'advocate' instead of 'argue'. So, stick to the word used in the original sentence. Avoid changing the meaning which leaves us with one answer - E.
_________________

I got the answer right but I have a doubt.

Should'nt there be a comma before "and" in "and legal rights for women" because it is the second element in the list.

If no, please explain when should comma be used with "and" when "and" is used for separating the last element in a list?

If a list has only two elements, we do not need to put a comma; Only when the list contains more than two items, then we put a comma between each of those items and finally of course, "a comma + and" before the last thing.
_________________