Ryunosuke Akutagawa‘s knowledge of the literatures of Europe, China

Both X and Y,

Why do we need both if and is present- is it redundant?

Ryunosuke Akutagawa‘s knowledge of the literatures of Europe, China, and that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as the content of his fiction.


(A) that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as

(B) that of Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, and it informed his literary style as well as

(C) Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style and

(D) Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, as it informed his literary style as much as

(E) Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style in addition to


SC01946

is the parallelism correct? both his literary style and the content of his fiction.
can anyone please help me understand this.

Hi huys, I have a question regarding the parallelism in the answer C: informing both his literary style and the content of his fiction.

I don't understand why is considered correct, a parallelism does not has both part with the same construction? for example both his X and his Y or both the X and the Y ???

thank you so much for your help.
egmat

I s there a violation of parallelism in (C), with "both" followed by a pronoun, and the immediate word after "and" starts without a pronoun. Although pronoun is still after words after. So are we allowed to do this?

What is the reason the the "both x&y" idiom/parallelism i allowed to (seemingly) be broken here?
"informing both his literary style and the content of his fiction"

Wouldn't strict use require "both his literary style and his fiction"?

Dear All,

I have a concern - in option D the pronoun it structurally refers to the subject "knowledge", it logically should also refer to "knowledge", thus I am confused as to how to decide on pronoun ambiguity exists or not

Ryunosuke Akutagawa‘s knowledge of the literatures of Europe, China, and that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as the content of his fiction.


(A) that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as

(B) that of Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, and it informed his literary style as well as

(C) Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style and

(D) Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, as it informed his literary style as much as

(E) Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style in addition to


SC01946

How can 'it' refer to development, as knowledge is the subject of the first clause, 'it' should refer to only knowledge right?
Please correct me if I am wrong.

How can 'it' refer to development, as knowledge is the subject of the first clause, 'it' should refer to only knowledge right?
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Choice D’s problems stem from the pronoun ‘it’ and the conjunction ‘as’.

First, it can refer to either knowledge or development. In both cases, it does not fit in logically.

Second, the knowledge was the first factor, his development as a writer is the next factor, and the third is the information about his style and function. The development and the information thereof are independent functions and not cause and effects. D is distorting the meaning by implying that development and information occurred simultaneously or the information occurred because of development. ‘As’ has meaning of ‘because ’ and ‘at the same time’. This is fatal error.

Hello Everyone!

Let's take a look at this question, one issue at a time, and narrow it down to the right choice! Before we dive in, let's take a look at the original question and highlight any major differences between the options in orange:

Ryunosuke Akutagawa‘s knowledge of the literatures of Europe, China, and that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as the content of his fiction.

(A) that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as
(B) that of Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, and it informed his literary style as well as
(C) Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style and
(D) Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, as it informed his literary style as much as
(E) Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style in addition to

After a quick glance over the options, we have a few things we can focus on:

1. that of Japan / Japan (parallelism)
2. was / were (subject-verb agreement)
3. How they end (modifiers/conjunctions)

Let's start with #1 on our list: that of Japan / Japan. This is an issue of parallelism! Let's take a look at each option, and determine which ones use parallel structure, and toss out the ones that don't:

(A) Europe, China, and that of Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing his literary style as much as
(B) Europe, China, and that of Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, and it informed his literary style as well as
(C) Europe, China, and Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style and
(D) Europe, China, and Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, as it informed his literary style as much as
(E) Europe, China, and Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style in addition to

We can rule out options A & B because "that of Japan" isn't worded the same way as the other two items on the list (Europe, China).

Now, let's move on to #2 on our list: was / were. This is an issue of subject-verb agreement! We know the subject of the sentence is "knowledge," which is a singular subject, and that means we need to use a singular verb to match. Let's see which options use a singular verb, and toss out the ones that don't:

(C) Europe, China, and Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style and
(D) Europe, China, and Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, as it informed his literary style as much as
(E) Europe, China, and Japan were instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style in addition to

We can rule out option E because it uses the plural verb "were" with a singular subject, which doesn't agree!

Now that we're left with only 2 options, let's move on to #3 on our list: how they end. We need to make sure the ending makes sense, doesn't distort meaning, and is 100% clear for readers:

(C) Europe, China, and Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, informing both his literary style and

This is CORRECT! The modifier "informing both his literary style and..." is clearly modifying the subject "knowledge." It also follows the idiomatic structure "both X and Y" at the end when it says "both his literary style and the content of his fiction."

(D) Europe, China, and Japan was instrumental in his development as a writer, as it informed his literary style as much as

This is INCORRECT because it's not written clearly. We have the pronoun "it," which could refer to knowledge or development. Vague pronouns are a major no-no on the GMAT! Also, the word "as" is a problem because it changes the meaning. This sentence is saying that Akutagawa's knowledge helped him develop as a writer at the same time that it informed his literary style and the content of his fiction. This isn't true - he gained the knowledge first, and then it helped make him a better writer!

There you have it - option C is the right choice here! It uses parallel structure, proper subject-verb agreement, and a clearly written modifier!


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.