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

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that the hypothetical composer in question is one who receives popular acclaim while living, but whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Tenses + Grammatical Construction + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• If a list contains only two elements, they must be joined by a conjunction; the "comma + and construction" (oxford comma) is used for the last element in a list of three or more elements.
• Information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense.
• The present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present.
• The simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.

A: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again"; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that the hypothetical composer in question goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity; the intended meaning is that the reputation of the hypothetical composer goes into decline after death and never regains its former status. Further, Option A redundantly uses "regains" alongside "again", rendering it awkward and needlessly wordy.

B: This answer choice incorrectly uses a comma to join two elements in a list - the modifying phrases "who receives popular acclaim while living" and "whose reputation declines after death and never regains its status again" that act upon the noun "composer"; remember, if a list contains only two elements, they must be joined by a conjunction. Further, Option B redundantly uses "regains" alongside "again", rendering it awkward and needlessly wordy.

C: Correct. This answer choice uses the phrase "whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status", conveying the intended meaning - that the reputation of the hypothetical composer goes into decline after death and never regains its former status. Further, Option C correctly uses the simple present tense verbs "declines" and "regains" to refer to information that is permanent in nature. Additionally, Option C correctly uses conjunctions ("but" and "and" in this sentence) to join elements in two lists of only two elements. Besides, Option C is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

D: This answer choice incorrectly uses the simple past tense verb "regained" to refer to information that is permanent in nature; remember, information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense, and the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past. Further, Option D incorrectly uses "and" to join the last element of a list with the rest of the elements; remember, the “comma + and” (oxford comma) construction is used to join the last element of a list of more than two other elements. Additionally, Option D redundantly uses "regained" alongside "again" and uses the needlessly indirect phrase "declines in reputation", rendering it awkward and needlessly wordy.

E: This answer choice incorrectly uses the present perfect tense verb "has declined" and the simple past tense verb "regained" to refer to information that is permanent in nature; please remember, information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense, the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present, and the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past. Further, Option E redundantly uses the word "then", rendering it needlessly wordy; this usage is redundant because "then" can be deleted without a loss of clarity.

Hence, C is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Present Perfect Tense" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



To understand the concept of "Oxford Comma" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

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

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?

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.

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.


Please help me understand this guys...

e-GMAT/Souvik ,if you can come with the resolution.

Hi debayan,

You ask very valid questions. Let me give answer to both your questions here.

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.
Shraddha

I am not clear about the referent of "Its". Pls help me in this regard. Thanks

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.
Please highlight.

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 ..

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

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

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

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