It was only after Katharine Graham became publisher of the Washington

Well guyz the reasons why option A is the best choice are Logical Predication and Parallelism.

Parallelism: It was only after Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers, and it was under her command that the paper won high praise for its unrelenting reporting of the Watergate scandal.

Moreover, because of the logical predication the sentence reads correctly without unnecessary usage of words such as 'becoming' and 'moving'

Hope the explanation helps!!

With answer (A), which is the correct answer, one thing I think that can throw many of is the first 'it was.' Clearly the use of 'it' in this sense does not require an antecedent. Given the proximity of the next 'it', however, one may think that the two 'its' do not refer to the same thing. Nonetheless, the phrase 'it was' should be treated differently from the 'it' in '...that it moved.' This 'it' clearly refers to the Post. The next 'it' in the 'it was...' maintains parallelism with the first 'it was.' Finally the last 'its' refers back to the Post. Quite a lot of 'its.' Hopefully, 'it' will not throw you next time .

Hello rishabhdxt,

You have presented a very detailed analysis of this official question. Great job there.

However, I would like to adjust your approach towards a few answer choices. So let's begin.



It is true that in Choice A, the two clauses joined by and follows the identical structure and hence maintain perfect parallelism, I hope you understand that this criterion is not a must for two elements to be parallel.

A choice that conveys the intended meaning in correct grammar with parallelism less perfect than in Choice A can be a contender for the correct choice.

But yes, this choice indeed is correct because it is logical and grammatical and clearly conveys the intended meaning.



See, parallelism wise, this choice also works. But it has the very evident error that you have correctly mentioned in your analysis.



I am afraid your reason to reject this answer choice is not correct. Please note the verb for the subject it is did move. So there is no SV number agreement error in this choice.

This choice is incorrect because of the usage of the modifier having won high praise. The modifier having verb-ed has a very specific usage. In modifying a clause, it presents the action done prior to the modified action in the main clause. For example:

1. Having finished his breakfast, Joe went to play tennis.

In the above-mentioned sentence, Joe first finished his breakfast and then went to play tennis. The sentence will convey the same meaning if we change the place of the having verb-ed modifier.

2. Joe went to play tennis, having finished his breakfast.

Both the sentences 1. and 2. convey the same meaning.

With the usage of having won high praise after the action did move, Choice C suggests that The Washington Post first won the praise and then moved to the first rank. This certainly is not the intended meaning.



Once again, your reason for rejecting this answer choice is not correct.

The opening verb-ing noun modifier Moving into... correctly modifies the subject of the following clause The Washington Post. But there is no verb for the subject The Washington Post.



Your analysis for this choice is also incorrect. The antecedent for the pronoun her is Katharine Graham's. Since her is a possessive pronoun, it can definitely refer to the possessive noun Katharine Graham's.

Just replace Katharine Graham's with her in this choice, and you will see that the sentence still conveys the same meaning.

This choice is incorrect because the expression Katharine Graham's becoming is a little awkward.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

I try... A for me

a)It was only after Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963
that it moved into the first rank of American newspaper, and it was under her command
that the paper won high praise

b)It was only after Katharin Graham's becoming publisher of The Wasington Post in 1963
that it moved into the first rank of American newspaper, and under her command it had
won high praise ->unnecessary change of tense

c)Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963, and only after that
did it move into the first rank of American newspapers, having won high praise under her command -> having won, modifier problem

d)Moving into the first rank of American newspaper only after Katharine Graham became
its publisher in 1963, The Washington Post, winning high praise under her command
-> missing main verb

e)Moving into the first rank of American newspaper only after Katharine Graham's becoming
its publisher in 1953, The Washington Post won high praise under her command -> tense problem, also change the meaning of the original sentence (emphasize Katharine's importance)

IMO A by POE

(A) It was only after Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers, and it was under her command that the paper won high praise for its unrelenting reporting of the Watergate scandal. - No issues , looks good
(B) It was only after Katharin Graham's becoming publisher of The Wasington Post in 1963 that it moved into the first rank of American newspaper, and under her commandt it had won high praise
(C) Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963, and only after that
did it move into the first rank of American newspapers, having won high praise under her command
(D) Moving into the first rank of American newspaper only after Katharine Graham became
its publisher in 1963, The Washington Post, winning high praise under her command - Missing the information of Watergate Scandal and moreover the sentence is awkward
(E) Moving into the first rank of American newspapers only after Katharine Graham's becoming its publisher in 1963, The Washington Post won high praise under her command. Same issue as D

Please consider giving KUDOS if you like my post

Explaining why E is not correct.

It was only after Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers, and it was under her command that the paper won high praise for its unrelenting reporting of the Watergate scandal.

Choice E is incorrect for two reasons. Firstly, it somewhat distorts the intended meaning of the sentence by taking away the emphasis. The original sentence clearly says that The Washington Post became the leading newspaper only after KG took charge of it and it was during her tenure only that the paper won high acclaims for its unrelenting reporting of the Watergate scandal.

Choice E removes this emphasis. Per this choice, the sentence means that The Washington Post won high praises for its unrelenting reporting of the Watergate scandal under KG’s command. By the way, the newspaper moved to first place after KG became the publisher. This point comes as additional information in the sentence. This is certainly not the intended meaning of the sentence.

Also if you compare “after KG’s becoming” with “after KG became”, the latter is better, clearer and more direct. So for these two reasons Choice E is not correct.

Hope this helps.
Shraddha

vipulgoel AjiteshArun
It's true that there is no strict English rule preventing the use of the same pronoun to refer to different antecedents. For instance, I might say "My wife asked her boss about the new position, and she told her that she was overqualified." I think a careful reader will understand that the following is intended:
she = my wife's boss
her, she = my wife

However, the GMAT really does tend to avoid this kind of usage, since it will often depend on context or outside information for clarity. So it makes sense for this to be something that we do (with discretion) in real-world English and avoid in the single-sentence world of the GMAT.

However, this "rule" or tendency has no bearing on the use of "it" as a placeholder. The first "it" in the sentence doesn't refer to a noun in the sentence, so there's no problem using a second "it" to refer to The Washington Post.

neeraj609, there is no problem with "it" in A because it is only used once as a typical pronoun. In the other two cases ("It was only. . . it was under . . . "), "it" is used as part of a phrase that introduces a modifier. Think of it this way: Under what circumstances did the paper win praise? Under the command of Katherine Graham. So "It was under her command that the paper won high praise." "It" is not referring to a noun at all, but to a set of circumstances.

Hi DmitryFarber,

I agree, and I could have been clearer in my earlier post. I tend to use the word rule to refer to an absolute rule (absolute is how I describe such rules to my students, but what I really mean is ~ "a pattern that is very reliable"). So if the question is whether something is possible, I would hesitate to call what we are discussing here a rule. However, I completely agree with this point (emphasis mine):


vipulgoel

I normally don't recommend looking at most pronoun issues as absolute rules because of questions like this one (different forms of they: possessive their, subject they, similar to possessive its, subject it):

The sentence is using an idiom here, though it's a common one that test takers probably should be familiar with. The idiom looks like this:

It was only after X happened that Y happened.

which can be rephrased, without using "that", in this way:

Y happened only after X happened.

The two sentences mean the same thing; they both suggest X preceded and was the cause of Y. There's a slight difference in emphasis in the two phrasings above, though. The first, using "It was only after X happened..." emphasizes the cause X, while the second emphasizes the effect Y. This is a fairly common idiom, because it is used with related wordings too, e.g.:

It was because X happened that Y happened.

which means the same thing as

Y happened because X happened.

but again there is a difference in emphasis. In the original question in this thread, the sentence is trying to draw more attention to Graham's accomplishments, and less to the improved standing of the Washington Post, which is why the writer used a construction that highlights Graham rather than the newspaper.

Of course, we can still decode idioms grammatically, but I rarely give much though to the part of speech common words like "that" and "for" play in constructions like this, because those words can play dozens of different roles in English sentences, and I don't derive any value from classifying those roles. Someone who gives more thought to that kind of issue will give you a more reliable reply, but it appears to me on quick reflection that the "that" here is introducing a "that-clause", so the usage is related to the relative pronoun function "that" can play.

I'd add that there's a typo in the correct answer (and original sentence) in the opening post that seems to have gone uncorrected for 14 years. The sentence should say "high praise", not "high praises". When "praise" is used as a noun, I can't think of any circumstance where it is correct to pluralize it, unless one is using the idiom "sing someone's praises" (which would almost certainly never appear in a GMAT question). The sentence "she received praise for her performance" is natural English, while the sentence "she received praises for her performance" is not, and is not something that would be considered correct on the GMAT. That's not the kind of issue GMAT SC tests, but it's because of this that I can be sure, without referring to the source, that the question in the OP has not been transcribed correctly.

Posted from my mobile device

B) Verb Tense Problem: Usage of past perfect implies that before Katharine Graham became the newspaper's editor, the newspaper won the prize!

C) Tense problem with modifier: 'having ....' as a modifier is one tense back from the original sentence, causing similar issue as in B
'only after that': GMAT does now allow such ambiguous usage of demonstrative pronouns; notice that there is no suitable noun that we can think of as an antecedent of 'that' here
Also, we need a comma before the second 'and'

D) a Fragment!

E) 'Katharine Graham's becoming' seems less preferable than the clause used in A: 'after Katharine Graham became'

The opening modifier is also too long.
Perhaps, also, 'Moving ...' is not a correct modifier, since this action is not a continuous one.

It was only after Katharine Graham became publisher of the Washington Post in 1963 that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers, and it was under her command that the paper won high praises for its unrelenting reporting of the Watergate scandal.

(A) It was only after Katharine Graham became publisher of the Washington Post in 1963 that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers, and it was under her command that the paper won high praises.

Correct : Parallelism

(B) It was only after Katharine Graham's becoming publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers, and under her command it had won high praises

--> use of 'had' is wrong . Incorrect
use of 'had' twist meaning . Washington post won high praises before it came under Katharine.

(C) Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963, and only after that did it move into the first rank of American newspapers, having won high praise under her command

Subject : It is singular & Verb : move is plural
Incorrect

(D) Moving into the first rank of American newspapers only after Katharine Graham became its publisher in 1963, The Washington Post, winning high praise under her command

Modifier, noun , modifier construction : Incorrect

(E) Moving into the first rank of American newspapers only after Katharine Graham's becoming its publisher in 1963, The Washinton Postwon high praise under her command

no antecedent for "her"

Experts pls comment

I don't think that having won high praise is necessarily wrong here, although it does complicate the meaning by implying that the high praise bit could be the reason for the move.

Take C out for the awkward construction and ambiguity that the that creates.

I received a PM requesting that I comment.

One purpose of the subjunctive mood is to express an action that is HYPOTHETICAL: an action that might not actually happen.
When we demand an action, we cannot be certain that our demand will be met.
Because the demanded action might not actually happen, we use the COMMAND SUBJUNCTIVE.
The structure of the command subjunctive is as follows:
BOSSY WORD + that + NOUN + BARE INFINITIVE.
Examples of bossy words: demand, dictate, mandate, etc.
The bare infinitive is the infinitive form of a verb with the to omitted.

Examples:
The attorneys demanded that the new contract be implemented.
The attorneys issued a demand that the new contract be implemented.
In the sentences above:
Bossy word = demanded and a demand
that + NOUN = that the new contract
Bare infinitive = be implemented (to be implemented with the to omitted)
The blue portion is expressed in the subjunctive mood because the demanded action is not a known fact but is only HYPOTHETICAL: it is possible that the new contract will NOT be implemented, despite the demand.



Here, the blue portion is NOT hypothetical but ACTUALLY HAPPENED: it is a known FACT that the paper won high praise.
Thus, the usage of the subjunctive mood would be unwarranted.
In this context, under her command = under her leadership.
Conveyed meaning:
Under Katharine Graham's leadership, the paper won high praise.

One purpose of that is to allow a CLAUSE to serve as a NOUN.

Clause:
The universe began in an explosive instant.
OA to SC8 in the OG12:
The widely accepted big bang theory holds THAT THE UNIVERSE BEGAN IN AN EXPLOSIVE INSTANT.
Here, the that-clause in blue functions as a NOUN.
More specifically, the blue that-clause serves as the direct object of holds.
Question: WHAT does the theory hold?
Answer: that the universe began in an explosive instant
that the universe began in an explosive instant = the EVENT that the theory holds

Case 1:
It was only after Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers.
Here, the first it is standing in for the that-clause in blue.
Conveyed meaning:
That it moved into the first rank of American newspapers was only after Katharine Graham became publisher.
In this case, the blue that-clause serves as a SUBJECT -- more specifically, the subject for was.
Question: WHAT was only after Katharine Graham became publisher?
Answer: that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers
that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers = the EVENT that was only after Katharine Graham became publisher

Case 2:
It was under her command that the paper won high praise.
Here, it is standing in for the that-clause in blue.
Conveyed meaning:
That the paper won high praise was under her command.
As in Case 1, the blue that-clause serves as the subject for was.
Question: WHAT was under her command?
Answer: that the paper won high praise
that the paper won high praise = the EVENT that was under her command

Your understanding is correct: having + VERBed expresses an action that PRECEDES the modified action.

SC21 in the OG12:
Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge, are now drawing solid conclusions.
Here, the action in blue (having amassed) PRECEDES the action in green (are drawing).

C: Only after that did it move into the first rank of American newspapers, having won high praise under her command.
As in SC21 above, the action in blue (having won) precedes the action in green (did move).

Hi daagh , the right answer is marked as A but option uses "IT" for two different things in this question. Is this a correct usage?

Thanks in advance!