OFFICIAL EXPLANATIONProject SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC1)
Quote:
The members were the first ones elected, since 1969, through a show-of-hands methodology, when pro-liberation activists put Archbishop Hammond Gabu, one of the country’s most revered clergymen, on the council.
A) elected, since 1969, through a show-of-hands methodology,
B) elected since 1969, through a show-of-hands methodology,
C) elected through a show-of-hands methodology since 1969,
D) who were elected, using a show-of-hands methodology , from 1969,
E) to be elected since 1969, and through a show-of-hands methodology
• Strategy tip: look for errors in the places at which the nonunderlined and underlined portions meet.
In other words, don't forget about the nonunderlined portion.
• Meaning?
By a vote through show of hands, pro-liberationists put new members on the council. That show-of-hands vote had not been used since 1969, when Archbishop Gabu was placed on the council by the same method.
• Overview
→ To answer this question in short order, notice that the portion immediately after the underlined part uses
when.
The word
when is used to describe an actual time or time period or to stand in for "if" in a zero conditional.
On the GMAT,
when is used in exactly two ways.
First and most commonly, when is used to specify an actual time or time period.What immediately follows the underlined portion?
COMMA +
when pro-liberation activists did XYZ.
Second,
when can be used in zero conditionals (general truths)—that is,
when can be used in place of
if because the statement is always true.
→
If water freezes, it expands.→
When water freezes, it expands.Both of those sentences are zero conditionals. The use of
when is correct.
• Split #1: In this context, when must modify a time periodIn options A, B, and E,
when should refer to a time period but refers incorrectly to
methodology.
Additionally:
→ In option B, no comma exists before "since," which creates some confusion that the reader must sort out.
Without a comma before "since," the sentence seems to state that the members were the first members elected
at all since 1969 rather than that these were the first members elected by show-of-hands vote since 1969.
→ In option E, the word
and creates a nonsensical sentence.
The members were the first to be elected [at all] since 1969, AND through a show of hands methodology, when [in 1969] pro-liberationists did XYZ?
Um, no.
Eliminate A, B, and E
• Split #2: MeaningOption D is garbled, especially compared with option C.
The show-of-hands method of electing council members was not "from" 1969.
That method may have been used in 1969, but the show-of-hands methodology is not "from" 1969.
The sentence as a whole is a train wreck of meaning.
These members cannot be the "first" members elected by show of hands if, in 1969, pro-liberationists placed the Archbishop on the council the same way.
Option D is also wordy.
→
who were elected in (D) is not as concise as
elected in (C).
In fact, "elected" in C is a "reduced [shortened] relative clause" that derives from
who were elected in option D.
To create a shorter modifier, a reduced relative clause, we start with
who were elected, drop the relative pronoun (who), drop the to be verb(were), and keep the past participle (the verbED) (elected).
Eliminate D.
The answer is CCOMMENTSsowaniglobal , welcome to SC Butler.
These answers are excellent.
Very nicely done!
close
26 Feb 2021, 00:54
45%
(medium)
40%
(01:33)
wrong 
