Virginia Woolf was keenly aware that she had not enjoyed the advantage

I believe it's D. If it is expressed in past perfect that she didn't enjoy the same tense goes for her friends too

Posted from my mobile device

You cant join two sentences using a comma. You need to use a semi-colon. That is the problem with B. Hence according to me B is incorrect. As far as you comment on A and D goes parallelism does not require you to repeat the subject.

The subject is there: Virginia Woolf.

Virginia Woolf (a) was aware and (b) was envious...

Usage of had is incorrect as had is used to indicate possession,correct and is b as it follows the rule of FANBOYS

Hi Vishnu, had in this sentence, is used as an indicator of past perfect tense and not to indicate possession.

vishumangal

Please refer to this link in which generis explained almost similar doubt of mine.

https://gmatclub.com/forum/even-though- ... l#p2227768

Posted from my mobile device

Virginia Woolf was keenly aware that she had not enjoyed the advantages of an Oxford or Cambridge education, and was envious of her male contemporaries who did.

A) and was envious of her male contemporaries who did --> "she had not enjoyed" should be parallel with "who had"
B) and she was envious of her male contemporaries who did --> same as A
C) she was envious of her male contemporaries who had --> conjunction/and is missing
D) and was envious of her male contemporaries who had --> correct
E) having envied her male contemporaries who did--> same as A

,and-- should not it take a subject as it starts a new clause???
Hence, B should be correct not D

Can someone plz comment your input.

In most instances, place a comma between two sentences that are joined with a coordinating conjunction--and, but, or, for, nor, so, yet:

1. She was not sure if she had the necessary mathematical abilities to be an engineer, so she pursued a graduate degree in history.
2. He was surrounded by fifty people, yet he felt all alone.

You do not need to place a comma between two independent clauses if they are short and similar in meaning, provided that no misunderstanding will take place, as illustrated in the following example:

1. Some doctors advertise their services but many doctors find this reprehensible.
2. The absence of the comma in this sentence is acceptable; it is not necessary to prevent misreading.


Other comma resources:

1. Use a Comma After Conjunctive Adverbs and Transitional Phrases at the Beginnings of Sentences
2. Use Commas After Introductory Subordinate Clauses
3. Use Commas Around Nonrestrictive Parenthetical Elements
4. Use Commas Before Nonrestrictive Adverbial Phrases or Clauses at the Ends of Sentences
5. Use Commas to Separate Adjacent Parallel Elements

AjiteshArun :

My concern is the sentence query in blue text.
It says we can join two ICs only by FANBOYS. Can we do this on the GMAT?

I think we can. Or more accurately, I don't think we have enough evidence to say that we can't . Because the GMAT does not try to test whether something like [IC + conjunction + IC] needs a comma, anything we use to take a call on that is probably not very reliable. More generally, commas are not tested extensively on the GMAT, so it's really hard to say whether a lot of the advice about commas applies to the GMAT.

In regard to whether Choice D is a combination of two ICs, please note that it is not. What appears after and is only a predicate. It is perfectly parallel to skip the subject on the second part as the subject of the first clause itself serves as the subject of the second part. This whole sentence is a simple sentence with Virginia as the subject, followed by two predicates in the form of 'was keenly aware' and 'was envious'. Therefore, the comma before ‘and’ is superfluous. Nonetheless, it is at best a punctuation error but not a grammar error. One can keep the comma or just skip it. Even so, no other choice is better than D and hence D is the correct answer, more by chance than by choice.

However, if you do not use a comma before the last item in lists where there are more than two items, then it becomes a grammar error and per se is not acceptable.

Hi daagh sir,
Is it a general norm that we don't have to repeat the subject after a co-ordinating conjunction?
For Eg: He went to a prestigious law school and got placed in a good firm. Here, we don't have to repeat the subject.
Is there any instance where after the co-ordinating conjunctions (FANBOYS), we have to use the subject/pronoun. Thanks in advance sir.

Adi

It is not a general norm. It is only a convenience. You may drop the noun or pronoun after the conjunction only when the subject of the first part can sensibly act as the subject of the second part also or the doer of the action is the doer of the second part also.
Example:
I went to New York and stayed with my brother. This is ok because I only went and stayed. But strictly speaking, this is not joining two ICS. This is just a conjugation of two verbs within a simple sentence.
Look at some examples.
I went to New York but at about the same Trump went to China.
The woods are deep and lovely, but I have to go for I have promises to keep.
There are two IC with actions done by two different agents. Here one requires using a subject for each of the clauses.
Even when the subject can act as the second subject or pronoun; there is no harm in using the second subject.

Example:
Our cook is slow but he is honest.

Take away: There may be exceptions to rules but exceptions are not rules.

Thanks.
Apparently, when we use the sub-ordinating conjunctions, we are actually joining two independent clauses. In these cases, we do repeat the subjects as there won't be any independent clause w/o a subject. Am I Correct?

If there is a comma and a conjunction then a subject is required or remove the comma (Manhattan Guide 8 SC - Chapter 10 para 2). Option D doesn't do either of them, B does i.e. add a subject.

Please comment and help.

I have the same doubt. If there is a comma and a and I read somewhere that subject needs to be present.

Posted from my mobile device

Hi AkashNGU and iamdivs,

This comes down to a difference in approach. Some people believe in following a strict set of "comma rules". That's fine, as they are entitled to their opinions. What's important for us (as test takers) is whether the GMAT has taken a position on some of the issues that we're looking at in this thread. It hasn't, and that makes applying these "rules" incredibly risky for test takers aiming for high scores. And although I cannot, without further information, address your question about the Manhattan book directly, I am very sure that at least some of their instructors give their students the same advice that I am giving you.

Try to avoid taking calls on the basis of comma usage, unless you're looking at something like a comma splice.