GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 29 Mar 2020, 23:20

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 8
Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 01 Oct 2018, 21:40
4
72
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

72% (01:16) correct 28% (01:27) wrong based on 3237 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of composer who receives popular acclaim while living, often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again.

(A) often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again

(B) whose reputation declines after death and never regains its status again

(C) but whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status

(D) who declines in reputation after death and who never regained popularity again

(E) then has declined in reputation after death and never regained popularity

Spoiler: :: OE
Attachment:

01.jpg [ 68.06 KiB | Viewed 10716 times ]

Attachment:

02.jpg [ 80.01 KiB | Viewed 10759 times ]

Attachment:

03.jpg [ 97.46 KiB | Viewed 10747 times ]

Attachment:

04.jpg [ 85.41 KiB | Viewed 10769 times ]

The Official Guide for GMAT Review, 11th Edition, 2005

Practice Question
Question No.: SC 136
Page: 660

Originally posted by pau.sabria on 18 Aug 2007, 05:55.
Last edited by Bunuel on 01 Oct 2018, 21:40, edited 3 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Retired Moderator
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5412
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Sep 2012, 04:46
17
6
The first split is going to be on redundancy. Regain and again do not go together. So, let’s remove A, B and D.
Second, between C and E, E distorts the meaning saying that the composer has declined, and never regained his popularity, especially after death. Can a dead person decline and regain? But the intended meaning is that the reputation declines and never regains its earlier status. Hence C.
_________________
One-to-one video private sessions on SC +91 98845 44509, <newnaren@gmail.com>
Director
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 742
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Re: Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2007, 06:09
8
7
pau.sabria wrote:
Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of composer who receives popular acclaim while living, often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again.

(A) often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again

regains popularity again is redundant usage. Also, once the composer is dead, he cannot often go into decline!

(B) whose reputation declines after death and never regains its status again

... regain again is redundant usage again

(C) but whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status

(D) who declines in reputation after death and who never regained popularity again

declines in reputation seems awkward; regained is in the wrong tense

(E) then has declined in reputation after death and never regained popularity
has declined in reputation after death is awkward - present perfect is not required here

I think C uses the coordinate conjunction but preceded by a comma correctly; C creates two independent clauses properly contrasted by the use of BUT that creates the desired effect of the statement - the kind of composer WHO receives popular acclaim while living, BUT whose (points to the composer properly) reputation declines after death and never regains its former status
##### General Discussion
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2983
Re: Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2014, 08:48
7
2
Hi Karan,

You are looking for three parallel items on a single list, but according to the meaning of the sentence, the three items can't be part of the same list, because the first item refers to the composer whereas the next two items refer to the composer's reputation. So, it doesn't make logical sense to place all three as part of the same list, and we need two separate clauses here. (Also, even if we take all three items to be part of a single list, we still can't identify option B as correct because the third item is not an IC even in option B. In this option, the last item is "never regains", so there's no subject that can be parallel to "who" and "whose reputation".)

So, as option C correctly shows, we need the conjunction "but" to create a new clause that is about the composer's reputation (not the composer). Then, we need "and" to join the verbs "declines" and "regains".

So, option C is fine. Note that the 'comma + conjunction + independent clause' structure is not always applicable, so follow the logic and the intended meaning of the sentence at all times.

I hope this helps!

Regards,
Meghna
_________________
Current Student
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4416
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2012, 23:15
5
4
Concept tested: Redundancy, preposition, parallelism, modifiers.
Difficulty: 700
Illustration: Carefully examine the following sentence
My sister, who is a teenager, and whose street play was appreciated by all, won the local talent award yesterday.
This is a perfectly correct sentence as “who is a teenager” and “whose street play was appreciated by all” both modifier the subject “My sister”.

Now lets look at the options.
A is wrong because the composer does not go into decline after his or her death, but his or her reputation does.
B is incorrect because it uses redundant construction “regains its status again”.
D and E are wrong for the same reason we eliminated A i.e the composer himself does not go into decline after death.
C is correct (option C breaks the FANBOYS rule, which a lot of prep companies advocate to eliminate answer choices. Please see below for clarification.).

Tip:
A lot of prep companies adopt the rule of FANBOYS which says
Independent clause, independent clause is a run on sentence.
o to make it correct we use the construction:
Independent clause, FANBOYS independent clause; FANBOYS stands for “For, And, Not, But, Or, Yet, So”.
However, the converse is not necessarily true. Two clauses separated by comma and FANBOYS do not necessarily mean they need to be independent clauses.
E.g My brother loves to drive so fast that his co passengers often fear being headlined in the newspapers the following day, and hates to wear seat-belts.
The sentence without the punctuation would become haywire.
Also, the punctuation rules are not tested on the GMAT.

_________________
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2983
Re: Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2012, 09:14
2
We have covered this sentence in our article "Alien word not so alien". This sentence is easy if you pay attention to meaning:

alien-words-not-so-alien-136331.html

Here is the explanation:

Let me just compare the correct answer choice (C) with the original answer choice (A):
A. often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again
C. but whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status

The first thing to notice here is that Choice C has far many new words than Choice A. These words are “but, whose, reputation, former, status”. Yet, this choice is the correct answer.
Now let’s analyze both these answer choices from meaning standpoint to better understand the role of the alien words in choice C.

Choice A: Per this choice, the sentence says that a certain kind of composer gains popularity while alive, declines after death and never regains his popularity. This meaning just does not make sense because once the composer has died, he cannot decline any further. This choice conveys absolutely illogical meaning.

Choice C: Per this answer choice, a certain kind of composer gains popularity when alive, but after death, his reputation declines and it never regains its previous status. Indeed. This answer choice makes all the sense and hence is the correct answer choice.

Look at the article to see some other examples that test this concept.
_________________
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2983
Re: Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2012, 15:49
2
1
Hi debayan,

Choice B: whose reputation declines after death and never regains its status again.

There is no problem with the reference of “whose” here. Just like “who”, “whose” also refers to “the kind of composer”. Look at this simple sentence:

The man with white hat is my uncle who has three yachts, and whose brewery is famous nationwide.

In the very same, in the official choice B, “whose” clearly refers to “the kind of composer” without any ambiguity. Now “who” is a relative pronoun that may be preceded by a comma or may not be preceded by one. Presence of comma does not affect its modification or of any other parallel entity in the list.

However, there is something else happening in Choice B. Notice that the subject “reputation” has two verbs “declines” and “regains”. These two verbs are correctly joined by “and”. This construction makes entire choice be the second entity in the parallel list, the first being “who often receives…”. Now since there are just two entities in the list per choice B, there should be a marker between the two entities, i. e. before “whose”. But there is no marker. This is another error.

Now let’s take a look at the use “former” in choice C: but whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status

Use of former suggests that after death, certain kind of composer does not enjoy that level of popularity that he/she enjoyed while alive. It’s not that he/she loses all the popularity. He/ she retains some popularity but not that popularity that he/she enjoyed when he/she was alive.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
_________________
Intern
Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 8
Re: Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Aug 2007, 08:25
1
OA is C.

Thanks to you all.

However, official explanation says:

(B) The two clauses are not parallel, lack of coordinating conjunction, and do not describe the same thing; reduntant again.

(C) Correct. This sentence presents the proper logic while maintaining parallel structure and consistent verb tense.

Can anybody explain me why (B) is not describing the same thing and (C) is?
Retired Moderator
Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Posts: 1041
Re: Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Dec 2012, 00:10
1
Thanks e-GMAT/Souvik for wonderful explanations.

But guys I've a bit confusion over option B and C :

@souvik,you mentioned that B is incorrect because it uses redundant construction “regains its status again”. Very true.
Apart from this error, I think another discrepancy in this option B is when we try to fit this option with the rest of the sentence,it doesn't get to fine as 'whose' doesn't get the subject it refers to.Had the original sentence used ',' (comma) after 'the kind of composer' (i.e. the kind of composer,who receives popular acclaim while living,whose...) then the first part of the whole sentence would have been proper.This same goes for 'C' also I guess.
Moreover the B uses 'regain'-'again'...It's redundant. But,I think the another redundancy goes with C also... i.e. 'regains its former status'. One will regain ONLY something that one was already associated with some time in the past.. hence, something which is 'former'.' So don't you think use of 'former' is NOT required with 'regain' hence redundant.

e-GMAT/Souvik ,if you can come with the resolution.
_________________
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4477
Re: OG 13 Q137 SC Question for Mike Mc Garry  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jan 2016, 16:55
1
crunchboss wrote:
Yes sir, This all make sense. Thanks a Lot.

I find one more problem from GMAT Prep software -

Narwhals can be called whales of the ice: in icy channels, ponds, and ice-shielded bays they seek sanctuary from killer whales, their chief predator, and their annual migrations following the seasonal rhythm of advancing and retreating ice.

(A) their annual migrations following
(B) their annual migrations which follow
(C) their annual migrations follow
(D) whose annual migrations following
(E) whose annual migrations follow

Official Explanation says "whose" is ambiguous. I have some hard time understanding this. Can You please help me sir why is "whose" ambiguous here.

Dear crunchboss,
I'm happy to respond. This is a subtle one.

By the time the sentence gets to the part about "annual migrations," we have past two notable nouns: narwhals and killer whales. Any structure that leaves ambiguity about which of these two animals is migrating is problematic.

The prompt and the OA, (C), use the pronoun "their." Notice that the same pronoun, "they" and "their" has been used already to refer to the narwhal, so saying "their annual migrations" clearly refers to the narwhals as well. The unity of the pronoun use creates the logical connection. No ambiguity.

By contrast, the structure "whose annual migrations" ----well, whose? Narwhals or killer whales? Both nouns precede the word "whose," so either could reasonably be the antecedent. This construction opens up an ambiguity of interpretation that exists neither in the prompt nor in the OA.

Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
Manager
Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Posts: 136
Schools: University of Dhaka - Class of 2010
GPA: 3.63
Re: Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Sep 2013, 21:03
I am not clear about the referent of "Its". Pls help me in this regard. Thanks
Intern
Joined: 26 Jan 2013
Posts: 4
Re: Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2014, 02:38
Hi,
Here we are looking for parallelism between 'receives' and 'reputation declines and regains'.
Rule of FANBOYS says : IC , FANBOY , IC
here in correct choice C there is no IC in second clause. C choice is : 'but whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status.'
here structure is :
Joachim....living(IC) ,But (FANBOY) whose...status(DC).
here whose indicates DC clause,but we need a IC. Then how it is correct?
Due to this I feel B is better though it has regain and again in same sentence which can be an error.
Intern
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 9
Re: Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2014, 10:52
egmat wrote:
Hi Karan,

You are looking for three parallel items on a single list, but according to the meaning of the sentence, the three items can't be part of the same list, because the first item refers to the composer whereas the next two items refer to the composer's reputation. So, it doesn't make logical sense to place all three as part of the same list, and we need two separate clauses here. (Also, even if we take all three items to be part of a single list, we still can't identify option B as correct because the third item is not an IC even in option B. In this option, the last item is "never regains", so there's no subject that can be parallel to "who" and "whose reputation".)

So, as option C correctly shows, we need the conjunction "but" to create a new clause that is about the composer's reputation (not the composer). Then, we need "and" to join the verbs "declines" and "regains".

So, option C is fine. Note that the 'comma + conjunction + independent clause' structure is not always applicable, so follow the logic and the intended meaning of the sentence at all times.

I hope this helps!

Regards,
Meghna

Thanks Meghna. for explanation ..

If option B is stated in such manner:
Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of composer who receives popular acclaim while living and whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status ..

Is this sentence right ..
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2983
Re: Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2014, 11:08
rahultripathi2005 wrote:
Thanks Meghna. for explanation ..

If option B is stated in such manner:
Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of composer who receives popular acclaim while living and whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status ..

Is this sentence right ..

You're welcome.

This version is better than the existing option, but the contrast between the acclaim and the decline in popularity is better expressed through "but" rather than "and".

Regards,
Meghna
_________________
Intern
Joined: 19 Jan 2014
Posts: 23
Re: Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2014, 17:14
monirjewel wrote:
I am not clear about the referent of "Its". Pls help me in this regard. Thanks

I was thinking the same thing! I eliminated B because I thought "its" was a little ambiguous, but then I saw the same pronoun used in C and since other answer choices had more obvious errors, I picked C.

Would be thankful if someone would explain why "its" is correct in this sentence. reputation regained its status? Seems illogical.
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 788
Re: Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2014, 10:55
bytatia wrote:
monirjewel wrote:
I am not clear about the referent of "Its". Pls help me in this regard. Thanks

I was thinking the same thing! I eliminated B because I thought "its" was a little ambiguous, but then I saw the same pronoun used in C and since other answer choices had more obvious errors, I picked C.

Would be thankful if someone would explain why "its" is correct in this sentence. reputation regained its status? Seems illogical.

Happy to help. Here the pronoun "its" is referring back to "reputation", the subject of this final, subordinate clause: "but whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status." Thinking about the meaning, it's clear that the reputation is the thing that never regains status.

Be careful with calling pronouns ambiguous. The GMAT is tolerant of ambiguity, so just because you aren't sure what the pronoun is referring to, don't eliminate it.

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Manager
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Posts: 226
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 680 Q48 V34
Re: Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2015, 12:48
egmat wrote:
Hi Karan,

You are looking for three parallel items on a single list, but according to the meaning of the sentence, the three items can't be part of the same list, because the first item refers to the composer whereas the next two items refer to the composer's reputation. So, it doesn't make logical sense to place all three as part of the same list, and we need two separate clauses here. (Also, even if we take all three items to be part of a single list, we still can't identify option B as correct because the third item is not an IC even in option B. In this option, the last item is "never regains", so there's no subject that can be parallel to "who" and "whose reputation".)

So, as option C correctly shows, we need the conjunction "but" to create a new clause that is about the composer's reputation (not the composer). Then, we need "and" to join the verbs "declines" and "regains".

So, option C is fine. Note that the 'comma + conjunction + independent clause' structure is not always applicable, so follow the logic and the intended meaning of the sentence at all times.

I hope this helps!

Regards,
Meghna

Although I got the question right and I agree that regain again is absolutely redundant, I can't fathom the idea that regain former status is not redundant.
What the difference in regain his status and regain his former status?
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2012
Posts: 788
Re: Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of compose  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2015, 05:33
b2bt wrote:
Although I got the question right and I agree that regain again is absolutely redundant, I can't fathom the idea that regain former status is not redundant.
What the difference in regain his status and regain his former status?

"Former status" wouldn't be considered redundant because the words don't mean the same thing. The definition of "regain" is to "attain again" so including the word "again" adds a word that shouldn't be there. Former and status don't overlap in meaning, so there isn't a case of redundancy.

I think you could make a case that "former" isn't necessary in the sentence because we are regaining a status that would have to be former, but as I read the sentence with former included it sends me back to the status discussed earlier in the sentence. In that way "former" is helpful in the sentence.

Regardless, we can see that the GMAT didn't feel it was redundant because we don't have any valid options that omit the word "former".

KW
_________________

Kyle Widdison | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Utah

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2013
Posts: 80
GMAT 1: 740 Q51 V39
OG 13 Q137 SC Question for Mike Mc Garry  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2016, 22:01
Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of composer who receives popular acclaim while living, often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again.

(A) often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again
(B) whose reputation declines after death and never regains its status again
(C) but whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status
(D) who declines in reputation after death and who never regained popularity again
(E) then has declined in reputation after death and never regained popularity

Sir,
This is OG 13 Q137
You have also explained it Here.

I didn't find any difficulty in arriving at the correct answer. I did that in 40 seconds.

I have few other questions -

1. Isn't that "who" Follows the Touch rule and If I am correct then this could be one another reason to fire Option.
2. Whose - I always has one confusion with the usage of whose- Whose can refer to Human Beings or also the inanimate Objects.
3. In your video you said sir that "then" is also a conjunction. I was never aware of that, can you please elaborate this more.

Thank you so much Sir.
_________________
Richa Champion | My GMAT Journey - 470 720 740

Target 760+

Not Improving after Multiple attempts. I can guide You.
Contact me richacrunch2@gmail.com
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4477
Re: OG 13 Q137 SC Question for Mike Mc Garry  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jan 2016, 17:01
crunchboss wrote:
Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of composer who receives popular acclaim while living, often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again.

(A) often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again
(B) whose reputation declines after death and never regains its status again
(C) but whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status
(D) who declines in reputation after death and who never regained popularity again
(E) then has declined in reputation after death and never regained popularity

Sir,
This is OG 13 Q137
You have also explained it Here.

I didn't find any difficulty in arriving at the correct answer. I did that in 40 seconds.

I have few other questions -

1. Isn't that "who" Follows the Touch rule and If I am correct then this could be one another reason to fire Option.
2. Whose - I always has one confusion with the usage of whose- Whose can refer to Human Beings or also the inanimate Objects.
3. In your video you said sir that "then" is also a conjunction. I was never aware of that, can you please elaborate this more.

Thank you so much Sir.

Dear crunchboss
I'm happy to respond.

1) I found your first question hard to interpret. If I understand correctly, you are asking about the word "who" at the beginning of option (D). My friend, there are many exceptions to the Modifier Touch Rule. One of the exceptions involves a string of modifiers in parallel: if two or more clauses modify the same noun, then obviously they can't all touch that noun. It's perfectly acceptable as long as the first touches the noun and the subsequent ones are parallel to the first. We might say metaphorically that these subsequent modifiers touch the target noun "through the parallelism."
George Washington, who faced enormous odds at the beginning of the American Revolution and who lead his ragged army to victory, was easily elected the first President of the US.
That second "who" can't touch the target noun, "George Washington," because the first modifier is in the way! This is not a problem: the very fact that the two modifying clauses are in parallel guarantees that the second clause would touch the target noun if the first clause were not in the way.
I am not certain what you were asking in your first question, so I am not sure whether this answers the question.

2) Yes, "whose" is one of those tricky words for that reason. Here's the subjective use of the pronouns:
The man who wrote the book . . .
The book that sparked a discussion about . . .

In the subjective use, we use two different pronouns, "who" for people and "that" or "which" for objects. Then, maddeningly, in the possessive, we use exactly the same pronoun:
The man whose book sparked a discussion . . .
The book whose main theme is . . .

Yes, this is confusing, but I believe you understand it. Have courage, my friend. English is a confusing language, sometimes even to us native speakers!

3) If I said that "then" is a conjunction, I misspoke. That is not correct. The word "then" is an adverb, and this adverb is often used to introduce clauses, the way a conjunction might do, but "then" itself is not a conjunction. IT is simply an adverb.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)
Re: OG 13 Q137 SC Question for Mike Mc Garry   [#permalink] 04 Jan 2016, 17:01

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 27 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by