Two-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan,

Dear HumptyDumpty,
I don't know that this is what anish123ster is getting at, but the phrase "known to oppose evolution on religious grounds" contains a potential ambiguity --- is Bryan's opposition on religious grounds? or is his opposition known to the rest of us on religious grounds? ---- In other words, the adverbial phrase "on religious grounds" could modify either of the verbs, and this ambiguity is potentially problematic.


They are quite similar --- the only major difference is that the phrase "an opponent of evolution" does not explicitly include the idea of the rest of us knowing about it. It's quite possible for a public figure to be an opponent of something without the general public knowing about his opposition. If we want to include the idea of everyone else knowing about it, the phrase becomes: "known to be an opponent of evolution" ---- that's awkward, clunky, floppy, and indirect --- the phrase "known to oppose evolution" is much more sleek and direct. As a general rule, if there's a split between the noun form (e.g. "opposition") and the verb form ("oppose") of the same word, using the verb form will generally lead to a more concise, more powerful, and more active sentence.
Here's a video lesson in which I discuss this latter idea:
https://gmat.magoosh.com/lessons/917-ver ... e-language

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-



Choice A: This answer choice preserves the intended meaning of the sentence and maintains proper idiomatic construction and pronoun use throughout the sentence. Thus, this answer choice is correct.

Choice B: This answer choice utilizes the phrase "as an opponent of", rather than the considerably more concise "to oppose". Moreover, the phrase "known as" is synonymous with "called"; this means that it is not the correct phrase to use here, as it implies that other people called the subject "an opponent of evolution on religious grounds". The correct phrase is "known to be". Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.

Choice C: This answer choice utilizes the unidiomatic phrase "opposition with", rather than the correct phrase "opposition to". Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.

Choice D: This answer choice suffers from a meaning-based error; the construction "religiously opposed" implies that the subject opposed something in a religious manner, while the intended meaning is that the subject opposed evolution on the basis of religion. Additionally, the pronoun "it" has no clear antecedent here. Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.

Choice E: This answer choice repeats the pronoun-related error seen in Option D. Thus, this answer choice is incorrect.

Hence, A is the best answer choice.

All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

A is the correct answer.

(A) known to oppose evolution on religious grounds...Correct
(B) known as an opponent of evolution on religious grounds..means he is an opponent of evolution..Incorrect
(C) known for his religiously based opposition with evolution..opposition with evolution..incorrect
(D) a person who, it is known, religiously opposed evolution..clearly wrong..sentence fragment
(E) who, it is known, opposed evolution on religious grounds...who, it is known..incorrect use..

Isn't he an opponent of evolution? Isn't it what follows from A)?

What is the critical difference between - known to oppose evolution - and opponent of evolution? known to oppose may be slightly better because it shorter; But are they both differenced otherwise?
_________________

Why then is the ambiguous AC the right AC? Does B: "known as an opponent of evolution on religious grounds" NOT contain the same ambiguity? If it does, is B out because it is wordier than A, but anyway both A and B are ambiguous?

IMO "an opponent of evolution" is wordy and hence incorrect for GMAT.

Dear HumptyDumpty,
The phrase "on religious grounds" is an adverbial phrase, a phrase that most naturally modifies a verb or verb form. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... d-clauses/
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... d-clauses/
In (A), the OA, the adverbial phrase modifies the closest verb form, the infinitive "to oppose". Very clear.
In (B), grammatically, the adverbial phrase should modify the verb form, the participle "known". Logically, that doesn't work. People say someone is "an opponent on such-and-such grounds", and I suppose we could say in that instance the prepositional is acting as an adjectival phrase, but I would call that construction suspect. It's not as clean, not a clear. Combine this with the active form "to oppose" vs. the static & wordy "an opponent of", and (B) is clearly wrong.
Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Two-time Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan, known to oppose evolution on religious grounds, became the star witness for the prosecution in the Scopes Trials.

(A) known to oppose evolution on religious grounds

(B) known as an opponent of evolution on religious grounds

(C) known for his religiously based opposition with evolution

(D) a person who, it is known, religiously opposed evolution

(E) who, it is known, opposed evolution on religious grounds
_________________

A. Known to is the wrong idiom. It is either Known as X or Known for something.
B. Don't see any problem.( 'Known as X' is correctly used)
C. Religiously based opposition with evolution is not right
D. Religiously opposed changes the meaning. He did not religiously oppose but opposed on religious ground.
E. Don't see any problem either. ('Known for something' correctly used).

Between B and E. I would go for B as B conveys the same info without using the unnecessary relative clause 'who..'.

Thanks!

B is wordy , compared to A.
C , the meaning is unclear. "opposition with"should be "opposition to"
D, and E are wordy.

A is best.

I see that B, D, E are wordy. and wordiness is the only reason for elimination of those choice, a situation not happening on gmat land. normally gmat test us : logic, unclearness and redundance. seldom gmat test us only wordiness.

A as it clearly conveys the meaning of the sentence

A .

my reason to discard " B " is that we use known as for names such as - He is known as the rock or He is known as XYZ .

C - religiously is incorrectly modifying opposition
D and E says opposed which implies he doesnt oppose any more now and plus they are wordy ;

be known to be/do something

If something or someone is known to be or do something, people know that it is true or happens, or that someone is or does something:

A daily intake of 20 mg of vitamin C is known to be sufficient in most cases to ward off scurvy.

known to oppose evolution on religious grounds Correct answer

I think official answer is wrong

(A) known to oppose evolution on religious grounds
"known to"-- unidiomatic
(B) known as an opponent of evolution on religious grounds
known as-- clearly modifies William Jennings Bryan, Also known as is idiomatic
(C) known for his religiously based opposition with evolution
"Impproper use of adverb, also chnages the meaning"
(D) a person who, it is known, religiously opposed evolution
"it"-- wrong usage of it
(E) who, it is known, opposed evolution on religious grounds
"it"-- wrong usage of it

Can someone please explain why B is incorrect ?

Some people in the posts above, have mentioned that B is wordy, when compared to A.

But I am also not totally convinced on this. What does OE say?

Correct:
------------
known to do X (usage: famous for)
known for [Noun (wisdom,sacrifice etc.)]
known as "X"
known by [Noun/Pronoun (person)]


Incorrect:
-------------
known to be
known of
known to have
known in [Gerund]
known as someone to do

The idiom "known as" is used in the sense "named" or "called":

The serial killer is known as Jack the Ripper.... correct
Though my actual name is Sayantan, in GMATclub I am known as sayantanc2k.... correct

In option B, " known as" does not make sense. Jennings Bryan is not called an opponent of evolution.