While Columbus is generally cited as the European who "discovered" Ame

Explaination from Magoosh site:
illogical comparison. Choice (C) uses the comparative structure “instead of Amerigo Vespucci.” Logically, we know that the comparison is with Columbus, but that is not clear grammatically, because the “instead of” phrase is nowhere close to the mention of Columbus. The juxtaposition “he was in East Asia, instead of Amerigo Vespucci” illogical suggests that Amerigo Vespucci was a place in contrast to East Asia. Choice (C) is incorrect.

While Columbus is generally cited as the European who "discovered" America, thinking that he was in East Asia, and it was Amerigo Vespucci correctly deducing that the New World was a landmass previously unknown to the Europeans.

The issue is about sentence structure. As we know, every complex sentence entails a subordinate clause and a main clause. Without the main clause in place, the sentence will only be a fragment. The sentence here is a complex- compound sentence, a combination of a complex and an additional IC conjugated by a coordinator.

A) thinking that he was in East Asia, and it was Amerigo Vespucci correctly deducing --- No accompanying main IC for the subordinate clause. A fragment
B) he thought that he was in East Asia, and it was Amerigo Vespucci who correctly deduced -- A correct grammatical sentence.
C) he thought that he was in East Asia, instead of Amerigo Vespucci who correctly deduced --- This sentence weirdly means that Columbus was in East Asia rather than in Amerigo Vespucci.
D) thinking that he was in East Asia, but Amerigo Vespucci correctly deduced-- same fragmentation problem as in A; the main clause is missed.
E) in East Asia according to his thought, and Amerigo Vespucci correctly deduced-- The fragmentation problem plus an absurd meaning as "discovered America in East Asia".

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Split #1: all choices begin with the “while” clause, and then four of the five have a phrase or clause, then a conjunction (“and” or “but”), and another independent clause. Since the “while” clause is a subordinate clause, and since the conjunction must join two independent clauses, what begins the underlined section in these choices must also be an independent clause. Let’s look at these:

(A) thinking that he was in East Asia = NOT an independent clause

(B) he thought that he was in East Asia = YES, an independent clause

(C) [different structure]

(D) thinking that he was in East Asia = NOT an independent clause

(E) in East Asia according to his thought = NOT an independent clause

Right away, we can eliminate choices (A), (D), and (E).

Split #2: illogical comparison. Choice (C) uses the comparative structure “instead of Amerigo Vespucci.” Logically, we know that the comparison is with Columbus, but that is not clear grammatically, because the “instead of” phrase is nowhere close to the mention of Columbus. The juxtaposition “he was in East Asia, instead of Amerigo Vespucci” illogical suggests that Amerigo Vespucci was a place in contrast to East Asia. Choice (C) is incorrect.

The only possible answer is (B), which makes effective and perfectly appropriate use of the emphatic structure.

https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/the-empty ... orrection/

mikemcgarry

Dear Friend,

Regarding to the following, I have two questions in my minds.


1. Does the conjunction always join two IC?

2. Is 'comma plus FANBOYS' an indicator of the presence of two IC’s?

Your opinion is highly solicited. Thanks in advance.

Yes, I have got my answers from https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-people-o ... 66598.html

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.