Much to the chagrin of citizens who enjoyed such performances as The Sleeping Beauty and Carmen, London's Royal Opera House was twice destroyed by fires, succumbed to flames in both 1809 and 1856.

A) London's Royal Opera House was twice destroyed by fires{,} succumbed to flames

B) London's Royal Opera House was twice destroyed by fires, succumbing to flames

C) twice destroyed by fires, London's Royal Opera House succumbed to flames

D) twice destroyed by fires, London's Royal Opera House succumbing to flames

E) London's Royal Opera House has been destroyed twice by fires{,} succumbed to flames

MY SOLUTION

Meaning: In both 1806 and 1859, citizens who enjoyed opera performances at London's Royal Opera house felt distressed
because the opera house was destroyed. The opera house was destroyed both times by fires. Another way to state "destroyed by fires"
is "the opera house succumbed to or was overpowered by flames."

• Split #1: MODIFIER MISPLACEMENT

The phrase twice destroyed by fires = comma + verbED (past participle)
-- Yes, the word twice comes first, but the "doing" modifier is destroyed.
-- (What does twice change without destroyed? Answer: Nothing.)

-- on the GMAT, a verbED modifier, a past participle, modifies the noun that immediately precedes it

Options C and D both state: . . . such performances as The Sleeping Beauty and Carmen, twice destroyed by fires, . . .

The modifier twice destroyed by fires, incorrectly modifies Carmen.
-- The opera performance Carmen was not destroyed twice by fires.
-- Neither opera performance was twice destroyed by fires.

The opera house was destroyed by fires.

Eliminate options C and D

Split #2: VERB TENSE

-- in the non-underlined portion, we have one simple past tense verb, enjoyed

-- also in the non-underlined portion, we have two sequential time markers: the dates 1809 and 1856.

-- whenever we see one simple past tense verb and another verb with an auxiliary such as has,
we should check immediately to see whether we have mismatched verbs.

Option E: [To the distress of] citizens who enjoyed . . . Carmen, the Opera House has been destroyed twice by fires . . . in 1806 and 1859.

-- has been destroyed is called present perfect passive.
-- Present perfect = has/have + past participle Here and here.
-- we do not need to know that jargon.
-- we need to know that "has been destroyed" expresses
an action that began in the past and that continues into the present OR whose effect continues into the present
-- sometimes the present perfect is called a "bridge" from past to present

To whose chagrin and when?
To opera-going citizens in 1806 and in 1859

Nothing in this sentence suggests that the destruction of the Opera House has any effect today.
Or: compare has been destroyed in Option E to was destroyed in options A and B (ignore succumbed/ing for now)

Option E incorrectly uses has been destroyed. The Opera House was [twice] destroyed.

Eliminate E

We are left with Options A and B.

-- If you are good at spotting verbs that need a conjunction rather than a comma between them, use that approach
The Official Explanation, below, discusses that issue.

If you are good at understanding comma + verbING (or comma + verbED, or both), then use that approach (participial modifiers)
The OE does not discuss participial modifiers. I will.

Split #3: To modify an entire previous clause, use comma + verbING, not comma + verbED

In option B, the phrase "succumbing to flames" allowably describes the Opera House.
The prepositional phrase also re-describes the previous clause
in which the Opera House was twice destroyed by fires.
In that sense, the phrase is appositional.

Alternatively, a present participial modifier [comma + ING] can present the "effect" or "result" of the previous clause,
or can be logically connected to the previous clause, or can indicate events simultaneous with the event in the previous clause.

We can think of "succumbing to flames" as part of, logically connected to, and simultaneous with the event "destroyed by fires."

By contrast, option A uses comma + verbED
On the GMAT, comma + verbED refers to the immediately preceding subject BUT
the verbED cannot jump back over another verb in order to get to its subject.

Option A: . . . Opera House was twice destroyed by fires, succumbed to flames in 1806 and 1859
The Opera house succumbed to flames.
But on the GMAT: 1) verbED refers to the immediately preceding noun/subject AND 2) cannot reach back over a verb to get to its subject

Here is an official question in which
the correct answer spoiler

-- fires did not succumb to flames
-- succumbed can't actually reach Opera House because there is a WAS in the way

Eliminate A

Answer B is correct.

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
My annotations are in blue typeface.

• Option A: The underlined portion of the sentence contains two simple past tense verbs without a conjunction joining them.
The subject, the Opera House, was part of two events.
It was destroyed by fires AND it succumbed to flames. We need a conjunction, not a comma.
Eliminate A and E, both of which contain this error

• Choices C and D confuse the meaning of the sentence by introducing
the phrase twice destroyed by fires in the wrong spot
See my notes above in Split #1

• Choice B corrects the error in choices A and E by using the __ING form of succumb,
which is appropriate to make it a present participle phrase describing the Royal Opera House

The correct answer is B

FINAL COMMENTS

Sarwan14 , welcome!

These answers are all very good and will help forum members who read the thread later.
Kudos to all.

So: Loser94 , aanjumz92 , Sarwan14 , KanishkM , and GKomoku -- nice work!
_________________

IMO correct answer is B. Why? Because the original presents an incorrect grammatical construction with "was...destroyed...,succumbed"

C and D incorrectly place "twice destroyed by fires" to create confusing modifier constructions/ambiguous meaning issues

E is wrong in that it is not parallel and uses "has been" for no reason followed by past tense "succumbed"

B corrects these issues and correctly uses the verb+ing modifier to clarify meaning/present more relevant info.

IMO B

So lets look at what the intent of the sentence was, London's Royal Opera House got destroyed twice, so the subject should be after the comma.

With this in mind, we can eliminate C and D.

A) London's Royal Opera House was twice destroyed by fires, succumbed to flames
Not sure what "succumbed" to flames here ?? IMO ed form is ambiguous here. -> Eliminate

B) London's Royal Opera House was twice destroyed by fires, succumbing to flames
+ing form maintains the continuity of the sentence and clears the intent.

E) London's Royal Opera House has been destroyed twice by fires, succumbed to flames
Something happened in the past, as we even have a fixed timeline. -> Eliminate
_________________