In London that afforded its playwrights only two theaters, Alpha Behn

The core of the sentence is "Alpha Behn had 17 plays staged (in 17 years)". This core has proper meaning when it's led by a subordinate clause that gives information about the difficulty of having plays staged in London. Answers D & E are independent clauses (using "and" to coordinate the 2 independent clauses), so those don't give the proper meaning and can be eliminated.

In answer choice C, the meaning of "afford" is changed. The meaning of the sentence seems to be that London afforded (or supplied/provided) only 2 theaters to its playwrights. In C, the playwrights are are the subject and they could only afford (or pay for) 2 theaters. That change in meaning is not justified and is also a bit illogical because the playwrights are staged at the theaters - they don't own the theaters.

The only difference between A & B is the "a" before London and that "a" is required to provide proper meaning. In choice A, the into phrase "In London" means "within London" and is a descriptive phrase, but as a descriptive phrase that clause is left without a subject. Eliminate A.

By saying "In a London" we now recognize that London is the subject of the clause and the city of London only afforded (or supplied) 2 theaters to its playwrights. Answer choice B is correct.

KW

There is a contrast in the sentence.
London afforded its playwrights only 2 theatres at that time (1600s). Still, Alpha Behn had 17 of her plays staged in as many years.

(A) In London that afforded its playwrights only two theatres

You are using the restrictive modifier "that ..." with London. But London is already uniquely defined. We use the restrictive to clarify the object about which we are talking such as

The car that is parked under the tree is very expensive.
"that is ..." tells us which car it is.

Here, we cannot be told which London we are talking about because there is only one London.
So it doesn't make sense.

(B) In a London that afforded its playwrights only two theatres

Correct. Now "that ..." is telling us about one particular London (assuming London viewed at different times in the past represents different forms of the city). It implies that today's London is different from the London of 1600s.

It is a valid construct that is used in good quality writings. Again, this brings up the importance of reading.


(C) Even though London's playwrights only were afforded two theatres

"only" is modifying playwrights. We want to modify "two theatres" with "only" to show that London had only two theatres at that time.

(D) Only two theatres were afforded by London to its playwrights, and
(E) Two theatres only were afforded by London for its playwrights, and

Both (D) and (E) are missing the contrast. The sentence does not make much sense without it.

Generally:
SINGULAR NOUN + that-modifier must be preceded by a determiner such as a, an, the, one, any, etc.
A: In London that afforded its playwrights only two theatres
Here, the portion in red is composed of SINGULAR NOUN + that-modifier and thus must be preceded by a determiner, as in the OA:
In a London that afforded its playwrights only two theatres
Eliminate A.

Original sentence: London...afforded its playwrights only two theatres
Here, only is positioned in front of two, indicating that the intended meaning is to circumscribe the NUMBER OF THEATRES.
Conveyed meaning:
London did not afford its playwrights THREE OR MORE theatres; it afforded them ONLY TWO.

C and E: only were afforded
Here, only is incorrectly positioned in front of the VERB were afforded, circumscribing NOT the number of theatres but the ACTION that is performed.
Since the intended meaning of the original sentence is not conveyed, eliminate C and E.

When and serves to connect two clauses, the two clauses must convey meanings that move in the SAME DIRECTION.
D: Only two theatres were afforded by London to its playwrights, and Alpha Behn had 17 of her plays staged.
Whereas the red clause describes an OBSTACLE, the blue clause describes a SUCCESS STORY.
Since the two clauses convey contrasting meanings, the usage of and in D is illogical.
Eliminate D.

the only way 'London' can be followed by 'that' is when the usage is preceded with an 'a': In a London that afforded. A is wrong.
afforded by London to its playwrights - awkward usage of passive form makes the sentences wordy and incorrect for each of the option c d and e

The use of "only were" (vs. "were only") in (C) is not good, but there is also a meaning issue. Who is affording the playwrights two theaters? We don't know. It almost sounds like

Option B is the correct answer:

Here "a London" refers to a particular form of the city London.Consider this way: There are many forms of the city; out of them the form discussed in the sentence is the one that afforded its playwrights only two theaters

Can someone explain option D?
I understood B but have confusion in D

mani4gupt

The most important flaw in D is that since we now have a clause in place of a modifier, we seem to have two disconnected statements. London had only had two theatres, and Aphra Behn (her name is misspelled in the OP) had her plays produced. There's no reason to connect these two statements into one sentence. In B, however, we see the point. In a city that only had two theatres, Behn nonetheless managed to get all those plays produced.

Also, the strange passive construction in D makes it seem as if London is somehow granting theatres to playwrights.

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma GMATGuruNY egmat could you please explain this question ?

I rejected B as soon as I saw a London

I could understood this question in above post.
you can try

Some great explanations above that I have nothing to add to, but the playwright's name (which was surely correct in the original GMAT version of the question) was "Aphra Behn", not "Alpha Behn". These historical SC questions on the GMAT aren't fictional -- they describe real people and real events.

_________________
Fixed. Thank you!

Bunuel please answer this. Gmat ninja u also answer.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.