GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 19 Sep 2018, 20:24

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Micheaux contends that the guild system both limited and encouraged ex

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Posts: 277
Location: India
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Micheaux contends that the guild system both limited and encouraged ex  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Dec 2016, 22:41
KalyanVaddagiri wrote:
Colon usage: To introduce something that follows logically; that is an effect or consequence.

I have three items in my grocery bag:apples, oranges and bananas.

Can someone explain or thoughts on this Option A how the first sentence introduced such an effect.


"The guild system both limited and encouraged experimentation in Renaissance" is a subordinate clause introduced by "that". This part is not a fragment.

The colon ":" introduces an explanation about or example of what has been stated before the colon. Here the part after colon explains how the guild system both limited and encouraged experimentation.[/quote]


Hi sayantanc2k,

Sorry, I still have difficulty in understanding the structure.

What I understood by your explanation is: Semicolon is used to give the explanation of the previous clause
1. Does the above sentence show the correct usage of the semicolon?

2.
Does semicolon provide the explanation of previous clause or that of any word in that clause? (In the given sentence, Semicolon":" provides explanation of guild system experimentation)

3.
If we consider
subject: "the guild system both limited and encouraged experimentation in Renaissance Italy"
explanation of the subject: " artisans who would have otherwise had no support were allowed to develop their craft"

a.
I am not sure whether the explanation is just above clause or the below clause(till the end)

"artisans who would have otherwise had no support were allowed to develop their craft, yet, once under such a system, they were discouraged from challenging the existing power dynamics"

b.
Where is the verb for the subject


Please help ![/quote]

1. ":" is called a colon, not a semicolon. Yes, the sentence correctly shows the usage of colon.

2. The part after colon provides further explanation for the part before colon (The part could be the whole clause OR a part of the clause, even a single word.)

3. a. The explanation is as follows:
Why does Micheaux contend that the guild system limited experimentation? - because "once under such a system, they were discouraged from challenging the existing power dynamics."
Why does Micheaux contend that the guild system encouraged experimentation? - because "artisans who would have otherwise had no support were allowed to develop their craft".

3 b. The verb for the first clause is "were allowed" (subject "artisans") and that of the second is "were discouraged" (subject "they").[/quote]



I knew that it is colon; semicolon is ";". I don't know where my mind was while writing the post. I did not realize even a single time that I was using the incorrect word.

Thanks for the wonderful explanation.
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 21 Apr 2016
Posts: 183
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Micheaux contends that the guild system both limited and encouraged ex  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Dec 2016, 17:35
Shouldn't "who otherwise would have had no support" in (A) be a non-essential modifier?

How is it correct without the above part set off by commas?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 21 Aug 2016
Posts: 277
Location: India
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Micheaux contends that the guild system both limited and encouraged ex  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Dec 2016, 21:03
manhasnoname wrote:
Shouldn't "who otherwise would have had no support" in (A) be a non-essential modifier?

How is it correct without the above part set off by commas?


"who otherwise would have had no support" modifies artisans.

As per the rule, if we set off a modifier by comma then sentence should make complete sense without that modifier because that is non-essential modifier.

Let's try the sentence without this sub-clause

Artisans were allowed to develop their craft, yet, once under such a system, they were discouraged from challenging the existing power dynamics.


In first sentence, term "artisans" is used in general, while, in the second sentence, "they" should refer to the artisans who otherwise would have had no support

however, "artisans" in the first sentence and "they" in the second sentence should refer to the same set of artisans

For instance--


The students who attended the class scored well in the exam - Correct


The students, who attended the class, scored well in the exam- Incorrect


because the set of the students in the second sentence is different from the first sentence. In the second sentence, students is used in general

The students scored well in the exam

Hope it helps..

+1 Kudos if you like the post :)
SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1798
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Micheaux contends that the guild system both limited and encouraged ex  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jan 2018, 19:55
commas is misplaced in E => "having no support otherwise" now becomes a redundant clause => E is incorrect.
VP
VP
User avatar
D
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1049
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Micheaux contends that the guild system both limited and encouraged ex  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jun 2018, 07:15

Official Magoosh explanation:



Important subtlety in the non-underlined part

Notice “both encouraged and limited”. The underlined must clearly show this contrast. The use of “and” (see (B)) or a sentence that doesn’t make this contrast clear (see (C)) makes for an incorrect answer choice.

(A) makes the contrast clear and maintains parallelism: “were allowed to...were discouraged from”.

(B) See above note on the subtlety. Also, the “once under a system” is missing the pronoun “they” since we need to make it clear who was “under a system”.

(C) See above on the subtlety. Also, “discouraged in” is unidiomatic. We need “discouraged from”

(D) is an absolute train wreck. First off the “being” should be “they were”. The clause before the comma and the word “but”, needs to have a clear verb modifying the subject artisans. The “otherwise not having support” is a phrase referring to the artisans. It does not function as a verb.

(E) This one is really tricky. There is a missing comma between “system” and “they”. Punctuation errors are not common on the GMAT, but might show up.
_________________

Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Best Gmat Resource:
GmatPrep CR|GmatPrep SC|GmatPrep RC

Want to improve your Score:
GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2

My Notes:
Reading comprehension

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 29 Jun 2017
Posts: 427
Re: Micheaux contends that the guild system both limited and encouraged ex  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jun 2018, 08:29
sayantanc2k wrote:
spradhan wrote:
I could not understand how E was changing the meaning of the original sentence....gramatically I found no error in E....Experts please help....Thanks in advance..


In option E, the present participle "having no support otherwise" takes up the tense of the verb in the main clause, "were". This construction does not clarify that not having support preceded allowing. Option A takes care of the above issue by using the past perfect tense ("have had").

However the subject ("they") of the second clause is missing in option A (seems to be a typo). The option has been modified to include the the same.



"otherwise" mean if something dose not happen. so, "otherwise' signal a non fact condition sentence.

my parent lent me money. otherwise, i could not have taken the trip.
if my parent had not lent me money, I could not have take the trip.

conditional sentence require "would do" and "would /could have done" if the sentence is in present or past.

otherwise can show a likeliness

shut the door. otherwise, it will be cold inhere.

so, otherwise is about condition and likeliness not about a sequence, in which one action happen before another.

I think so
Re: Micheaux contends that the guild system both limited and encouraged ex &nbs [#permalink] 04 Jun 2018, 08:29

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 26 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Micheaux contends that the guild system both limited and encouraged ex

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.