In the Scopes Trial in 1925, three-time Presidential candidate William

Question

In the Scopes Trial in 1925,  three-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, who opposed evolution on religious grounds, argued that evolution not be taught in public schools, while famed trial lawyer Clarence Darrow argued that it be .

A. three-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, who opposed evolution on religious grounds, argued that evolution not be taught in public schools, while famed trial lawyer Clarence Darrow argued that it be

B. three-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan opposed evolution on the grounds of religion and also argued that evolution should not be taught in public schools, but that evolution should be taught in public schools was argued by Clarence Darrow, who was a famous trial lawyer

C. William Jennings Bryan, who had run for President three times and who had opposed evolution on religious grounds, had argued against the teaching of evolution in public schools, while Clarence Darrow, a famous trial lawyer, had argued with it

D. William Jennings Bryan, who ran for President three times, opposed evolution on the grounds of religion, as he argued that evolution should not be taught in public schools, Clarence Darrow, a famous trial lawyer, had argued for it

E. William Jennings Bryan, who had run for President three times, opposing evolution on religious grounds, argued against the teaching of evolution in public schools, although famous trial lawyer Clarence Darrow argued that it should be

generis · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION Project SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC1) For SC butler Questions Click Here In the Scopes Trial in 1925, three-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, who opposed evolution on religious grounds, argued that evolution not be taught in public schools, while famed trial lawyer Clarence Darrow argued that it be . A) three-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, who opposed evolution on religious grounds, argued that evolution not be taught in public schools, while famed trial lawyer Clarence Darrow argued that it be B) three-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan opposed evolution on the grounds of religion and also argued that evolution should not be taught in public schools, but that evolution should be taught in public schools was argued by Clarence Darrow, who was a famous trial lawyer C) William Jennings Bryan, who had run for President three times and who had opposed evolution on religious grounds, had argued against the teaching of evolution in public schools, while Clarence Darrow, a famous trial lawyer, had argued with it D) William Jennings Bryan, who ran for President three times, opposed evolution on the grounds of religion, as he argued that evolution should not be taught in public schools, Clarence Darrow, a famous trial lawyer, had argued for it E) William Jennings Bryan, who had run for President three times, opposing evolution on religious grounds, argued against the teaching of evolution in public schools , although famous trial lawyer Clarence Darrow argued that it should be MAGOOSH EXPLANATION about the famous Scopes trial, which pitted William Jennings Bryan against Clarence Darrow. As was the case in the famous trial, this sentence should show contrast between the two sides. Choice (A): this choice clearly states Bryan's view, correctly using the subjunctive in the first "that" clause and in the "that" clause for Darrow. This second "that" clause elegantly drops the common words in parallel . Choice (B): This is very wordy, the longest answer. It redundantly spells out Darrow's opinion, repeating many words just used, and states the second clause in the passive, making it even longer and meandering. This is a complete train wreck. This choice is incorrect. Choice (C) : Every single verb is in the past perfect tense : This is illogical, because the past perfect tense only makes sense in comparison to something in the simple past tense. Also, the final part has the wrong idiom. If we say "A argued for X," then we know that A was an advocate of X. By contrast, if we say, "A argued with X," then it sounds as though A was an opponent of X. The structure here suggests that Darrow was an opponent of evolution, so he would have been agreeing with Bryan: then, nothing about the sentence makes sense! This choice is incorrect. Choice (D) : The logic of the "as" clause is unclear. Also, this sentence has a comma splice: that is, it separates the two independent clauses with only a comma, and there's no conjunction properly joining them. Finally, it's unclear why Darrow's verb is in the past perfect tense, since the two men were there having the argument at the same time. This choice is incorrect. Choice (E): the "although" is jarring as a contrast word here. The contrast words "but" and "while" connote powerful contrast: "Mike argued yes, but Chris argued no." BAM! The word "although" is softer, suggesting that there's something we didn't expect about the difference. These expectations don't fit the subject matter. Also, the parallelism is faulty. The first branch has "the teaching of evolution" and the second branch has "that it should be." That final phrase is waiting for a verb, but there's not a full verb in the first branch, only a gerund—if we substituted that in, it would make no sense: "that it should be the teaching of evolution ..." This choice is incorrect. The only possible answer is (A). COMMENTS zhanbo , although argue does not often trigger the command subjunctive, when argue means something similar to insist, it can and does take the command subjunctive. More importantly, Mike McGarry of Magoosh, who wrote this question, did not make argue a decision point. If you want to challenge, please present evidence. desertEagle , welcome to SC Butler.

We are glad to have your participation. You all did good work. Well done.

zhanbo · Answer

My answer is  (A) . It took me 02:24.

(A) The only concern I have with this option is the use of "be taught" and "it be". Such use of subjunctive mood is commonly associated with what we call "bossy verbs". But I do not think "Argue" is a bossy verb.

(B) This is the longest sentence with passive voice thrown in for no justifiable reason. "and also" can simply be "and", which actually works better.

(C) All verb tenses are past perfect. Past perfect only makes sense with a simple past tense.

(D) Comma splice.

(E) The use of "although" is suspect. "although" means "in spite of the fact that". Here we are presented with two independent facts. It is hard to imagine why one view occurred despite the other view. 
Also, "famous trial lawyer Clarence Darrow argued that it should be" likely means "famous trial lawyer Clarence Darrow argued that it should be taught in public schools". But "taught" does not appear in the main clause. (The main clause uses "teaching" instead.) So, "taught" cannot be omitted.

In (A), however, "it be (taught)" can be written without "taught" because "not be taught" appears in the main clause.

desertEagle · Answer

-->  opposed evolution on the grounds of religion, as he argued that evolution should not be taught in public schools -- it says that because he argued that evolution should not be taught, he opposed evolution --> Not intended meaning --> Wronng

TarunKumar1234 · Answer

In the Scopes Trial in 1925, three-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, who opposed evolution on religious grounds, argued that evolution not be taught in public schools, while famed trial lawyer Clarence Darrow argued that it be.

A. three-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, who opposed evolution on religious grounds, argued that evolution not be taught in public schools, while famed trial lawyer Clarence Darrow argued that it be

B. three-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan opposed evolution on the grounds of religion and also argued that evolution should not be taught in public schools, but that evolution should be taught in public schools was argued by Clarence Darrow, who was a famous trial lawyer

C. William Jennings Bryan, who had run for President three times and who had opposed evolution on religious grounds, had argued against the teaching of evolution in public schools, while Clarence Darrow, a famous trial lawyer, had argued with it

D. William Jennings Bryan, who ran for President three times, opposed evolution on the grounds of religion, as he argued that evolution should not be taught in public schools, Clarence Darrow, a famous trial lawyer, had argued for it

E. William Jennings Bryan, who had run for President three times, opposing evolution on religious grounds, argued against the teaching of evolution in public schools, although famous trial lawyer Clarence Darrow argued that it should be

Project SC Butler

For SC butler Questions Click Here

Crytiocanalyst · Answer

A) three-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, who opposed evolution on religious grounds, argued that evolution not be taught in public schools, while famed trial lawyer Clarence Darrow argued that it be
'That' plays several roles and in the above sentence the role is for maintaining parallelism , argued that......and argued that it be .......nice and parallel so let us keep for a while 
 
B) three-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan opposed evolution on the grounds of religion and also argued that evolution should not be taught in public schools, but that evolution should be taught in public schools was argued by Clarence Darrow, who was a famous trial lawyer
even though the parallelism is maintained the construction is a hot soup can be portrayed better through A therefore out

C) William Jennings Bryan, who had run for President three times and who had opposed evolution on religious grounds, had argued against the teaching of evolution in public schools, while Clarence Darrow, a famous trial lawyer, had argued with it
past perfect tense all the way through even though isn't a huge issue however other options are conveying the meaning without this superfluous approach tehrefore out

D) William Jennings Bryan, who ran for President three times, opposed evolution on the grounds of religion, as he argued that evolution should not be taught in public schools, Clarence Darrow, a famous trial lawyer, had argued for it
Dependent clauses are coordinated with a comma not acceptable meaning error therefore out

E) William Jennings Bryan, who had run for President three times, opposing evolution on religious grounds, argued against the teaching of evolution in public schools, although famous trial lawyer Clarence Darrow argued that it should be
That it should be isn't parallel with anything therefore out since we require 2 clauses in the sentence with that to complete the parallelism therefore out

THerefore IMO A

Bunuel · Answer

Magoosh Official Explanation:

A question about the famous Scopes trial, which pitted William Jennings Bryan against Clarence Darrow.

As in the famous trial, this sentence should show contrast between the two sides.

Choice (A):  this choice clearly states Bryan’s view, correctly using the subjunctive in the first “that” clause and in the “that” clause for Darrow. This second “that” clause elegantly drops the common words in parallel.

Choice (B): This is very wordy, the longest answer. It redundantly spells out Darrow’s opinion, repeating many words just used, and states the second clause in the passive, making it even longer and meandering. This is a complete trainwreck. This choice is incorrect.

Choice (C): Every single verb is in the past perfect tense: this is illogical, because the past perfect tense only makes sense in comparison to something in the simple past tense. Also, the final part has the wrong idiom. If we say “A argued for X,” then we know that was an advocate of X. By contrast, if we say, “A argued with X,” then it sounds like A was an opponent of X. The structure here suggests that Darrow was an opponent of evolution, so he would have been agreeing with Bryan: then, nothing about the sentence makes sense! This choice is incorrect.

Choice (D): The logic of the “as” clause is unclear. Also, this sentence has a comma splice, that is, it separates the two independent clauses with only a comma, and there’s no conjunction properly joining them. Finally, it’s unclear why Darrow’s verb is in the past perfect tense, since the two men were there having the argument at the same time. This choice is incorrect.

Choice (E): the “although” is jarring as a contrast word here. The contrast words “but” and “while” connote powerful contrast: “Mike argued yes, but Chris argued no.” BAM! The word “although” is softer, suggesting that there’s something we didn’t expect about the different. These expectations don’t fit the subject matter. Also, the parallelism is faulty. The first branch has “the teaching of evolution” and the second branch has “that it should be.” That final phrase is waiting for a verb, but there’s not a full verb in the first branch, only a gerund—if we substituted that in, it would make no sense: “that it should be the teaching of evolution …” This choice is incorrect.

The only possible answer is (A).

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

In the Scopes Trial in 1925, three-time Presidential candidate William

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

In the Scopes Trial in 1925, three-time Presidential candidate William

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards