Seeming to be the only organization fighting for the rights of poor

Seeming to be the only organization fighting for the rights of poor people in the South, Hosea Hudson, a laborer in Alabama, joined the Communist party in 1931.

(A) Seeming to be - modifier issue - seeming modifies HH but HH is a person and not an organisation
(B) As - meaning issue- HH is a person and not an organisation
(C) In that they seemed - they has not plural antecedent, usage of 'in that' is incorrect because we need a more direct causal connection
(D) Since it seemed
(E) Because it seemed to be

Can you please help to eliminate option D?
AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , MagooshExpert , GMATGuruNY , VeritasPrepBrian , MartyTargetTestPrep , DmitryFarber , VeritasKarishma , generis , EducationAisle , VeritasPrepErika , other experts - please enlighten

Here's the version created via the use of (D).

Since it seemed the only organization fighting for the rights of poor people in the South, Hosea Hudson, a laborer in Alabama, joined the Communist party in 1931.

We can see that "since it seemed" is followed by a noun phrase, "the only organization fighting."

When "seemed" is followed by a noun or noun phrase, "seemed" is generally followed by "to be," and many consider "seemed" without "to be" followed by a noun or noun phrase incorrect.

On the other hand, "seemed" without "to be" can be followed by an adjective without a noun, as in the following example.

The koala seemed friendly.

However, some people take the stance that "seemed" followed by an adjective followed by a noun is correct. So, since "only" is an adjective, I think some people would consider the version created via the use of (D) correct. So, to answer this question correctly, you have to decide to eliminate (D) because (E) is indisputably correct, whereas many people, or even most people, though not all, would consider (D) incorrect.

So the following is always considered correct. ("seemed" followed by adjective)

The rabbit seemed happy.

The following is virtually always considered incorrect. ("seemed" followed by noun only)

The animal seemed an elephant.

The following is always considered correct. ("seemed" followed by "to be" followed by a noun)

The animal seemed to be a wolf-coyote hybrid.

The following is considered correct by some people. ("seemed" followed by an adjective followed by a noun)

London seems a nice city.

I guess we could analyze this further and say the following.

"London seems nice," is correct.

"London seems only," is incorrect.

So, does the above mean the following?

"London seems a nice city," is correct.

"London seems the only city to have this type of culture," is incorrect.

Perhaps, or perhaps that analysis is attempting to find logic where no such logic exists.

Anyway, this question is not the greatest, since probably some English speakers would consider (D) correct, and also since, even if we consider (D) incorrect, the difference between (D) and (E) is purely idiomatic. So, this question does not test much of value.

generis daagh could you please help me with my doubt?

I think the question is a bit flawed as the modifier Because it seemed to be should be strictly followed by the object that it modifies, like an absolute phrase.

So the more correct version of the answer would be:

Because it seemed to be / Seeming to be / whatever... the only organization fighting for the rights of poor people in the South, the Communist party was joined in 1931 by Hosea Hudson, a laborer in Alabama.

This is why I excluded E, preferring A against logic.

Camach wrote

I think the question is a bit flawed as the modifier Because it seemed to be should be strictly followed by the object that it modifies, like an absolute phrase.

So the more correct version of the answer would be:

Because it seemed to be / Seeming to be / whatever... the only organization fighting for the rights of poor people in the South, the Communist party was joined in 1931 by Hosea Hudson, a laborer in Alabama.

This is why I excluded E, preferring A against logic


Camach

1. The clause you have mentioned is not a modifier. It is a subordinate clause with, because as a subordinate conjunction and seemed to be is the verb. The modification rules that apply to an adjectival modifier phrase do not apply to complex sentences.

2. When you use a passive voice main clause as in your sentences, it tends to mean that Hosea joined the CP with some other party such as the Conservative party.

Can you get why E is much better?

daagh

So you are saying that one should look for meaning first and then understand if modifier rules (or whatever other rule) can be applied accordingly to the complexity of the sentence.. right?

Deciding when a rule might be slightly violeted to privilege meaning does not seem an easy task though.. any advices?

Seeming to be the only organization fighting for the rights of poor people in the South, Hosea Hudson, a laborer in Alabama, joined the Communist party in 1931.

Lets look at the opening statement and analyse the logic behind it. It looks to be modifying whatever proceeds the first comma, so we need to ensure that whatever preceeds the first comma can logically flow with 'Hosea Hudson' who is clearly a person i.e. a laborer in Alabama

A, B, C, and D are clearly illogically describing Hosea Hudson as the organisation itself. Also, 'they' is plural and doesn't agree to the collective noun 'communist party' unless it is referring to the individuals within that party, which, it is clearly not..

(A) Seeming to be
(B) As
(C) In that they seemed
(D) Since it seemed

(E) Because it seemed to be

E makes the first clause dependent to the remainder of the sentence and we have a clear logical thought. Because X, Hudson became a commie...

EducationAisle Can we use "it" in option E?

Hey Mayank221133, I'm no expert but there is only one logical antecedent to "it", i.e, the communist party. So yes, it is correct here.

Hi Mayank221133, I agree with what you are suggesting here. Since the sentence has an introductory modifier Because it seemed....in the South, I would have ideally expected Communist party (the antecedent of "it") to immediately follow this introductory modifier.

p.s This seems to be a very dated official question (the tag says "pre 2000"). Haven't come across this issue in any of the more recent official publications.

Got it! Thanks

Posted from my mobile device

Makes sense. Thanks!

Posted from my mobile device

I didn’t get the point D, can somebody help?

Posted from my mobile device

Hi Stanindaw,

Unfortunately, daagh was almost certainly wrong about this. Since can be used as a subordinating conjunction to introduce the reason for something (that is, it can be used to mean because).

Thanks a lot for helping me out!

Posted from my mobile device

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.