On any city street in today's world one will encounter more women who

On any city street in today's world one will encounter more women who wear pants than skirts, yet, just two or three generations ago, when police forced actress Marlene Dietrich to leave Paris in 1945, for she had dared to wear pants on the street.

A is wrong because compares "more women who wear pants than skirts": women with skirts. Also uses " she had dared " past-perfect is wrong in this occasion.
Also C uses the past perfect: no reason to to so, and its usage it's wrong.
Avoid passive if possible, out B and D.
We can eliminate some answers if we look at this part: "it was only two or three generations ago, in 1945, when /that actress" when is wrong in this construct: "that" is correct.

e)one will encounter more women wearing pants than wearing skirts, yet it was only two or three generations ago, in 1945, that actress Marlene Dietrich was forced by police to leave Paris for daring to wear

E correctly compares "women wearing pants" with "(women) wearing skirts". The verbs are correct and the sentence is clear
IMO E, waiting for OA...

IMO:


a)one will encounter more women who wear pants than skirts, yet, just two or three generations ago, when police forced actress Marlene Dietrich to leave Paris in 1945, for she had dared to wear _ This is a grammatically incorrect construction of the sentence. The subordinate clause introduced by ‘when’ is a fragment, not falling upon a main clause; the next clause ‘for she had dared to wear ‘is also a sub -clause, with the word ‘for’ meaning ‘because’, another subordinate conjunction. The sentence is incomplete and a fragment

b)more women have been encountered wearing pants than skirts, yet it was only in 1945, just two or three generations ago, when police forced actress Marlene Dietrich to leave Paris to dare wearing --- same problem as in A; a fragment

c)one has encountered more women wearing pants than skirts, yet, only two or three generations ago, it was in 1945 that Marlene Dietrich, the actress, was forced to leave Paris by police because she dared to wear – perfect tense ‘has encountered’, is wrong as if the encounter is not going to happen again

d)more women who wear pants than women who wear skirts will be encountered, yet in 1945, just two or three generations ago, when actress Marlene Dietrich was forced by police to leave Paris to dare wearing --- will encounter is wrong, as if we have not encountered them so far.

e) one will encounter more women wearing pants than wearing skirts, yet it was only two or three generations ago, in 1945, that actress Marlene Dietrich was forced by police to leave Paris for daring to wear -- best choice
_________________

E looks the best of the lot. Although "one will encounter more women wearing pants than wearing skirts" gives altogether a different connotation.
I would have liked sentence making comparison as follows....more women who wear pants than women who wear skirts. A and D has that structure but are followed by run on sentence.

hi rakesh,
Nice catch on yet part..
In options A and C In 1945 doesnt modify correctly the noun phrase "just two or three generations ago"... That is also a flaw in options A and C right?

one has encountered more women wearing pants than skirts, yet, only two or three generations ago, it was in 1945 that Marlene Dietrich, the actress, was forced to leave Paris by police because she dared to wear

In Option C, importance is given for the year 1945. What we need as per the original sentence's intended meaning is for ''only two or three generations ago''.. Option C, the bolded text is made non essential.. Wrong..

Tough question, E is correct.

The rule for comparison is: more X than Y ==> X and Y must be comparable.

A is wrong because: more women who wear pants than skirts.
B is wrong because: more women have been encountered wearing pants than skirts
C is wrong because: more women wearing pants than skirts
D is wrong because: "to leave Paris to dare wearing" changes meaning. Also, passive voice " will be encountered," is not good.

E is correct

E ist the best choice, but I think it is not fully correct:


Isn't the underlined "that" wrong here? "When" would suit much better! Is the problem rewritten corretly?

Hi Humpty Dumpty,

No I think 'that' is correct.

Here is E

one will encounter more women wearing pants than wearing skirts, yet it was only two or three generations ago, in 1945, that actress Marlene Dietrich was forced by police to leave Paris for daring to wear

You can take out the 2 words 'in 1945' out - as it just describes 'two or three generations ago' and it becomes clearer:

one will encounter more women wearing pants than wearing skirts, yet it was only two or three generations ago, that actress Marlene Dietrich was forced by police to leave Paris for daring to wear

Then I think it's clear that 'that' is correct.

completely agree with DAAGH

COMMA FANBOYS construction always connects two independent clauses......
in this case COMMA YET must connect two independent clause....therefore OPTION A,B, AND D is out as they dont have main subject ....hence a fragment....not a clause.

in OPTION C
c)one has encountered more women wearing pants than skirts, yet, only two or three generations ago, it was in 1945 that Marlene Dietrich, the actress, was forced to leave Paris by police because she dared to wear
In this first of all comparison is wrong....women compared with pants....
secondly only two or three generations ago,,,is incorrectly modifying "IT"......rather it should modify 1945....hence this is wrong......

hence correct option is E.

hope it helps

SKM

hi rrkan,

first of all for under standing a fragment you must be able to distinguish between independent clause and dependent clause.
Independent Clause
======================
An independent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb and expresses a complete thought. An independent clause is a sentence.
example:
Jim studied in the Sweet Shop for his chemistry quiz.

Dependent Clause
=======================
A dependent clause is a group of words that contains a subject and verb but does not express a complete thought. A dependent clause cannot be a sentence. Often a dependent clause is marked by a dependent marker word.

When Jim studied in the Sweet Shop for his chemistry quiz . . . (What happened when he studied? The thought is incomplete.)

Dependent Marker Word
========================
A dependent marker word is a word added to the beginning of an independent clause that makes it into a dependent clause.
example:
When Jim studied in the Sweet Shop for his chemistry quiz, it was very noisy.
Some common dependent markers are: after, although, as, as if, because, before, even if, even though, if, in order to, since, though, unless, until, whatever, when, whenever, whether, and while.

Sentence Fragments
=====================

Sentence fragments happen by treating a dependent clause or other incomplete thought as a complete sentence.
example:
Because I forgot the exam was today.
You can usually fix this error by combining it with another sentence to make a complete thought or by removing the dependent marker.

Correct: Because I forgot the exam was today, I didn't study.
(or) I forgot the exam was today.

now in our question :
On any city street in today's world one will encounter more women who wear pants than skirts, yet, just two or three generations ago, when police forced actress Marlene Dietrich to leave Paris in 1945, for she had dared to wear pants on the street.

according to comma fanboys rule ===>comma yet or comma for will connect to IC.
THEREFORE
when police forced actress Marlene Dietrich to leave Paris in 1945
AND
she had dared to wear pants on the street
BOTH SHOULD BE AN INDEPENDENT CLAUSE....but clearly the first sentence is starting with when and doesn't makes complete sense.
hence this is a fragment.
note: i am not considering any other grammatical error right now.

HOPE IT HELPS.

It definetely helps. Thanks a lot. I read through the fanboys stuff too but I have one question.

one will encounter more women wearing pants than wearing skirts, yet it was only two or three generations ago, in 1945, that actress Marlene Dietrich was forced by police to leave Paris for daring to wear

In this sentence because of yet(fanboy) there should be a complete though before and after fanboy right.

"one will encounter more women wearing pants than wearing skirts" -- is this a complete thought or does it needs to have subject and verb ?
in such a case what is the subject and verb in this.

"it was only two or three generations ago, in 1945, that actress Marlene Dietrich was forced by police to leave Paris for daring to wear"
What is the subject and verb in this case.

HI RRKAN,
see if you see the sentence as you presented here:
one will encounter more women wearing pants than wearing skirts, yet it was only two or three generations ago, in 1945, that actress Marlene Dietrich was forced by police to leave Paris for daring to wear
in this case the first part : one will encounter more women wearing pants than wearing skirts.....this is not making a complete thought in my opinion because still you have question that when or where one will encounter more women wearing pants than wearing skirts.
but if you read the non underlined portion the complete sentence before yet is like this:
On any city street in today's world one will encounter more women who wear pants than skirts===>now this makes a complete thought and our when and where is also clear.
in this case subject is: ONE
verb: will encounter.
now the second part after YET:
it was only two or three generations ago, in 1945, that actress Marlene Dietrich was forced by police to leave Paris for daring to wear
See as we know AN IC can be formed by attaching two dependent clause and same is the case here.
and since each clause must contain its own sub-verb pair.....so there are two sub-verb pair.
first: sub:IT verb: was
second: sub: MARLENE D verb: was forced.

more for your information :
whenever you spot a relative pronoun such as THAT , WHICH, WHO....etc...it should be followed by a clause means it must have a subject and verb.

kudos if it helps.

Thank you very much for your explanation. I understood every thing you wrote.
Is there any documentation you point out where I can read more on this. I read Manhattan GMAT SC
couple of times but it does not talk about all these nuances for example you mentioned
" AN IC can be formed by attaching two dependent clause and same is the case here".
I dont know this before.

rrkan,

check out chapter 10 - odds & ends strategy in MGMAT SC strategy guide.

Manhattan Prep Official Explanation

This sentence presents a contrast between two situations. Today, it is extremely common for women to wear pants; only a couple of generations ago, however, this was considered shocking. These two ideas are connected by the transition yet, which properly expresses the contrast between them. For the sentence to function properly, it must contain a correct comparison in the first clause, and it must contain properly placed modifiers and correct idioms in the second.

(A) This choice is not a complete sentence. The word yet should be used to connect two independent clauses (complete sentences), but the portion following yet is not a complete sentence. The word just introduces a modifier, the word when introduces a subordinate clause, and the word for introduces yet another modifier; none of these is a stand-alone sentence.

(B) The present perfect have been encountered is inappropriate, as the sentence is intended to make a general observation, not an observation about specific past circumstances. It was ... in 1945… when is an incorrect idiom; the correct idiom is It was in 1945 that. The infinitive to dare wrongly suggests that Marlene Dietrich left Paris in order to be able to wear pants elsewhere. Finally, the combination of dare and an -ing form is unidiomatic.

(C) The present perfect has encountered is inappropriate, as the sentence is intended to make a general observation, not an observation about specific past circumstances. The modifier only two or three generations ago appears to describe the following clause (it was in 1945 that...), illogically implying that the timeframe of this event has actually changed over the last couple of generations. The modifier by police should be placed next to the action was forced, not the action to leave. Although adverbial modifiers are not generally required to be placed right next to the actions they modify, they should not be placed next to the wrong action. In this case, she was forced by police. She did not leave by police.

(D) The construction will be encountered is illogical: it seems to suggest that wearing pants makes a woman more likely to encounter other people, rather than the intended meaning. The infinitive to dare wrongly suggests that Marlene Dietrich left Paris in order to be able to wear pants elsewhere, and the combination of dare and an -ing form is unidiomatic. Finally, this choice is not a complete sentence. The word yet should be used to connect two independent clauses (complete sentences), but the portion following yet is not a complete sentence. The words in and just introduce modifiers, and the word when introduces a subordinate clause; none of these is a stand-alone sentence.

(E) CORRECT. The first clause contains a correct comparison between wearing pants and wearing skirts (note that the word women does not need to be repeated). The modifier in 1945 is properly placed next to only two or three generations ago, the idea that it describes in more specific terms. Finally, for daring to wear is idiomatically correct.
_________________

daagh
Sir i was able to answer this question easily but can you help me understand one thing?
in right choice i want to clear the usage of *that*
only two or three generations ago, in 1945, that actress Marlene Dietrich
Can we replace this "that" with "when"?
_________________

Although I am quite satisfied with Option E as OA but I am quite sceptical about the use of It in E. Can any Manhattan verbal Expert clarify this please ?

I agree i rejected the options with ''IT'' AS THEY ARE NOT REFERING TO ANY NOUN. May be they are just place holders, but difficult to judge.