Sartre, an inadvertent guru, had an opinion on everything, painfully

But without "that", how can we know it is a noun + noun modifier?
There is neither a verb-ed/verb-ing modifier nor "that"/"which" which are generally indicators that describe the noun.

I chose the correct response, basically following EMPOWERgmatVerbal and the approach he used. The only one that could possible be considered Parallel is Answer Choice A.

My question is the following: too many times I’ve read that a “comma, -ed” Past Participle at the end of the sentence can NOT be considered an adverbial modifier.

Does this question therefore prove that there are exceptions to this “rule”?

I say “rule” because I think most people who cite this say that the GMAT never takes the position. This question seems to fly in the face of that.

EDIT: hmmm, never mind. I suppose these are a list of Noun Modifiers at the end of a sentence?

Posted from my mobile device

You are right Sunny. Ideally, there should have been an and; however, this is just an acceptable writing style, especially used to emphasize attributes.

No matter if the best choice has a small mistake or needs a small correction.

That's not a good way to look at officially correct answer choices.

A correct answer choice means that GMAT, at the very least, considers it acceptable (and not just because it has least number of mistakes).

This question is mostly about parallelism. The non-underlined portion ends with a list of attributes (describing Sartre's opinion), so we're expecting another attribute to complete the list. The first two attributes (“painfully considered, elaborately reasoned”) show us the pattern: adverb adjective, adverb adjective.

Choice (A) gives us exactly what we expect: another attribute that describes Sartre's opinion, in the form "adverb adjective" ("often changed"). So (A) is looking pretty good, but let's see if we can eliminate the others.

If we only had "usually changed" instead of "it was usually changed," then (B) would be tempting. Again, the first two elements of the list are in the form "adverb + adjective," so we expect something similar in the final part.

Instead, we get "pronoun + verb + adverb + adjective"--the addition of a subject pronoun and verb ("it was") makes it seem like we are starting an entirely new sentence, rather than continuing the list of attributes.

That's not what we want, so we can get rid of (B).

This would be fine if the “that was” came before the whole list: “…had an opinion on everything that was painfully considered, elaborately reasoned, [and] often changed.” But at the end of the list, "that was" doesn't make any sense and throws off the parallelism. (C) is out.

Here the parallelism might technically be ok because we have another attribute that describes Sartre's opinion ("changing often"). But unlike in (A), we don't get a nice, clean (and easy-to-follow) list of "adverb + adjective" pairs.

Moreover, since we are talking about Sartre's opinion in the past, the opinion shouldn’t be “changing often"--this seems to imply that the opinion is STILL changing in the present.

In contrast, "considered" and "reasoned" suggest actions that were performed ON the opinions in the past--the opinions were painfully considered BY Sartre, and the opinions were elaborately reasoned BY Sartre. That pattern doesn't work with the third item: "The opinions were changing often by Sartre" doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, choice (A) implies that "the opinions were often changed by Sartre," which makes more sense and fits with the pattern of the first two attributes. This makes (A) the better choice, so we can eliminate (D).

You can get rid of (E) pretty quickly because it doesn't fit with the parallel structure at all. Using this option, the list of attributes has the form: "(1) adverb adjective, (2) adverb adjective, (3) pronoun ("one") noun modifier ("[that] he often changed")--the parallelism is clearly better in (A).

That's enough reason to get rid of (E). But if (and only if) you'd like nerd out and dive a little deeper on this one, keep reading...

Aside from the obvious deviation from the part of speech pattern, there is another really subtle reason that the parallelism isn't ideal here:

• The first two items in the list describe what Sartre’s opinion was like, without mentioning specific action by Sartre: his opinion was considered and reasoned. (If you like the jargon, this is the passive voice). As we saw in option (D), the first two elements imply actions performed ON the opinions.
• But with "one he often changed," "he" is the subject of the verb "changed." This active construction gives Sartre more agency—he is the one specifically changing the opinion, as opposed to the opinion having been changed BY him.
• Simply put, because two of the elements in the list are in the passive voice and one is in the active, the parallelism isn't as good as it is in option (A). Again, you don't need to go there to get rid of (E), but this gives us one more vote for (A) over (E) .

In any case, (A) is our best option.

I hope that helps!

This question is mostly about parallelism. The non-underlined portion ends with a list of attributes (describing Sartre's opinion), so we're expecting another attribute to complete the list. The first two attributes (“painfully considered, elaborately reasoned”) show us the pattern: adverb adjective, adverb adjective.

Choice (A) gives us exactly what we expect: another attribute that describes Sartre's opinion, in the form "adverb adjective" ("often changed"). So (A) is looking pretty good, but let's see if we can eliminate the others.

If we only had "usually changed" instead of "it was usually changed," then (B) would be tempting. Again, the first two elements of the list are in the form "adverb + adjective," so we expect something similar in the final part.

Instead, we get "pronoun + verb + adverb + adjective"--the addition of a subject pronoun and verb ("it was") makes it seem like we are starting an entirely new sentence, rather than continuing the list of attributes.

That's not what we want, so we can get rid of (B).

This would be fine if the “that was” came before the whole list: “…had an opinion on everything that was painfully considered, elaborately reasoned, [and] often changed.” But at the end of the list, "that was" doesn't make any sense and throws off the parallelism. (C) is out.

Here the parallelism might technically be ok because we have another attribute that describes Sartre's opinion ("changing often"). But unlike in (A), we don't get a nice, clean (and easy-to-follow) list of "adverb + adjective" pairs.

Moreover, since we are talking about Sartre's opinion in the past, the opinion shouldn’t be “changing often"--this seems to imply that the opinion is STILL changing in the present.

In contrast, "considered" and "reasoned" suggest actions that were performed ON the opinions in the past--the opinions were painfully considered BY Sartre, and the opinions were elaborately reasoned BY Sartre. That pattern doesn't work with the third item: "The opinions were changing often by Sartre" doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, choice (A) implies that "the opinions were often changed by Sartre," which makes more sense and fits with the pattern of the first two attributes. This makes (A) the better choice, so we can eliminate (D).

You can get rid of (E) pretty quickly because it doesn't fit with the parallel structure at all. Using this option, the list of attributes has the form: "(1) adverb adjective, (2) adverb adjective, (3) pronoun ("one") noun modifier ("[that] he often changed")--the parallelism is clearly better in (A).

That's enough reason to get rid of (E). But if (and only if) you'd like nerd out and dive a little deeper on this one, keep reading...

Aside from the obvious deviation from the part of speech pattern, there is another really subtle reason that the parallelism isn't ideal here:

• The first two items in the list describe what Sartre’s opinion was like, without mentioning specific action by Sartre: his opinion was considered and reasoned. (If you like the jargon, this is the passive voice). As we saw in option (D), the first two elements imply actions performed ON the opinions.
• But with "one he often changed," "he" is the subject of the verb "changed." This active construction gives Sartre more agency—he is the one specifically changing the opinion, as opposed to the opinion having been changed BY him.
• Simply put, because two of the elements in the list are in the passive voice and one is in the active, the parallelism isn't as good as it is in option (A). Again, you don't need to go there to get rid of (E), but this gives us one more vote for (A) over (E) .

In any case, (A) is our best option.

I hope that helps!

This is how I deconstructed the statement:

X had an opinion & that opinion

a) was painfully considered
b) was elaborately reasoned
c) was changing often

I was stuck between A & D because the opinion was often changed in this case would be incorrect.

We can certainly write opinion was changing often, as the opinion was changing often in past, I guess there is nothing wrong in that structure-wise or grammatically.

I am not sure if this sentence observes proper construction.

AndrewN

What about using 'and' before that last item in the list('and' before often changed)??

X,Y,and Z is the correct structure. Please help !

Sartre, an inadvertent guru, had an opinion on everything, painfully considered, elaborately reasoned, often changed.

(A) often changed
(B) and it was usually changed
(C) that was often changed
(D) changing often
(E) one he often changed

SC56561.01

I really struggle with finding the meaning in this sentence. How are we supposed to know that "painfully considered, elaborately reasoned, often changed." refers to Sarte's opinion? From my perspective, "painfully considered, elaborately reasoned, often changed." refers to Sarte him/herself?!

Please help! My brain hurts!