kntombat wrote:
AndrewN, I would love to hear your take on this question.
Sure,
kntombat. This one took me 1:33 to work through, but I felt confident in my answer, for reasons I will outline below.
dominicraj wrote:
Rallies organized in conjunction with the dissemination of democratic principles which was once prohibited by Communist Chinese leaders, are beginning to take shape at a grass roots level permitted by the new Chinese leadership.
(A) Rallies organized in conjunction with the dissemination of democratic principles which was once prohibited by Communist Chinese leaders, are
The restrictive
which clause—i.e. without a comma—will typically modify the nearest preceding noun, although it can, on occasion, jump over the object of a preposition and modify an earlier noun. If we try either option here, we get an unsatisfactory line:
1)
[principles] was once prohibited by Communist Chinese leaders2)
[the dissemination of democratic principles] was once prohibited by Communist Chinese leadersThe first violates basic subject-verb agreement; the second not only opts for a suboptimal passive construct, but why use three words at the beginning instead of just one in
disseminating? Moving on, in the original sentence, that comma that separates the subject of the main clause from the verb is unwarranted. A cleaner sentence would simply say,
Rallies... are. So unusual is such a comma that I wonder whether the original sentence did, in fact, have a comma before the
which (marking off what would then be a nonrestrictive clause). Altogether, this sentence is a tangled-up mess.
dominicraj wrote:
(B) Rallies organized in conjunction with the dissemination of democratic principles,a practice that Communist Chinese leaders once prohibited, is
Here, we have another sentence that does not really make sense. To what does
a practice refer? Rallies are not a practice—organizing rallies is—so I am led to believe that
a practice reaches back to
the dissemination of democratic principles. I guess that could work, but I should not have to labor over the expression of vital meaning. Regardless, the
is is a clear violation of subject-verb agreement:
rallies... is does not work. We can safely eliminate (B).
dominicraj wrote:
(C) Organizing rallies in conjunction with the dissemination of democratic principles,as once prohibited by Communist Chinese leaders, is
Okay, at least we have a clear action this time in
organizing rallies. Still, I wish there were a comma after
rallies to clearly separate one action from another. Moreover, what am I to make of
as? If I am to take the entire phrase up to the first comma as a joint subject, then why could I not simply launch into
once, without the
as? Finally, we are still reading a sentence in the passive voice, which is okay, but not preferable. This is the best answer so far, but I have a few reasons to doubt it.
dominicraj wrote:
(D) Communist Chinese leaders once prohibited organizing rallies in conjunction with the dissemination of democratic principles, but they are
The sentence is now in the active voice and is much easier to follow, but there is no way to justify the ambiguous
they at the end of the underlined portion. You cannot declare the correct interpretation the only logical one when
they can also refer to the Chinese Communist leaders:
Communist Chinese leaders... are beginning to take shape at a grass roots level. We could also make a case for
rallies as a joint action:
rallies are beginning to take shape at a grass roots level. In any case, I should not have to fish around for a logical referent to
they (i.e.
principles, according to the correct answer).
dominicraj wrote:
(E) Communist Chinese leaders once prohibited organizing rallies in conjunction with the dissemination of democratic principles, but such principles are
Now there is no confusion over what the sentence is driving at. We have a right-branching sentence with a clear subject,
Communist Chinese leaders, and verb,
prohibited, and rather than rely on some vague
they, we get a straightforward ending to the underlined portion:
such principles are. Does it make sense to say that principles take shape at a grassroots level? I prefer
rallies as the location where such principles are shared, but I understand how democratic principles may be allowed by a new government. In terms of grammar, this is the cleanest answer; in terms of meaning, it is not any worse than the best of the rest. I like to say that the answer you should pick is the one you have the hardest time arguing against, so we have a winner from this lot.
I hope that helps. Thank you for seeking my opinion, and good luck with your studies.
- Andrew
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.