Examples of "tulipomania," a term coined from the tulip craze of the

B.

Scratch C,D,E since it was the 'term' that was coined in the 17th century and these choices make no reference to 'term'

Scratch A because the tulip craze of the seventeenth-century in the Netherlands is a little awkward and the seventeenth-century tulip craze in the Netherlands sounds so much more proper.

OA is B and needs to be so.

In hard question like this one, the meaning plays a lot!

Here, "Tulipomani" include todays terms such as X or Y.

==> So eliminated all the past tense sentences: E
==> Then eliminate all that add words you do not need Coined from the seventeenth-century tulip craze in the Netherlands is preferable to coined from the tulip craze of the seventeenth-century in the Netherlands / Eliminate : A
==> In C, it need to be parallel Coined from the seventeenth-century tulip craze in the Netherlands, examples : here you need to have "Tulipomani" instead of examples
==> And in D: "tulipomania" includes examples such as is wordy

Hope it helps

Hi Paris75,
You can indeed eliminate options E ,C ,& D as you mentioned.
But If you look at Option A :"tulipomania," a term coined from the tulip craze of the seventeenth-century is slightly preferred over
tulipomania," a term coined from the seventeenth-century tulip craze in option B{ Since tulip craze is closer to the term it signifies "tulipomania"}
BUT option A distorts the meaning by using faulty parallelism (as indicated in my post above) We choose B which is both logically and grammatically correct.

Hope it helps

IMO B


Examples of "tulipomania," a term coined from the tulip craze of the seventeenth-century in the Netherlands, include speculative bubbles in South Seas trading rights in the 1720s, Victorian real estate in the 1880s, the U.S. stock market in the 1920s, and the obsession for Beanie Babies in the 1990s.

A. Examples of "tulipomania," a term coined from the tulip craze of the seventeenth-century in the Netherlands, include speculative bubbles in South Seas trading rights in the 1720s, Victorian real estate in the 1880s, the U.S. stock market in the 1920s, and ---Incorrect ---for reasons mentioned by dentobizz

B. Examples of "tulipomania," a term coined from the seventeenth-century tulip craze in the Netherlands, include speculative bubbles in South Seas trading rights in the 1720s, Victorian real estate in the 1880s, and the U.S. stock market in the 1920s, as well as -- Hold It

C. Coined from the seventeenth-century tulip craze in the Netherlands, examples of "tulipomania" include speculative bubbles in South Seas trading rights in the 1720s, Victorian real estate in the 1880s, and the U.S. stock market in the 1920s, as well as -- Incorrect ---coined from .... modifies "examples of tulipmania"

D. Coined from the seventeenth-century tulip craze in the Netherlands, "tulipomania" includes examples such as speculative bubbles in South Seas trading rights in the 1720s, Victorian real estate in the 1880s, the U.S. stock market in the 1920s, and -- Incorrect --- plural examples need singular include....

E. "Tulipomania," coined from the seventeenth-century tulip craze in the Netherlands, included speculative bubbles in South Seas trading rights in the 1720s, Victorian real estate in the 1880s, the U.S. stock market in the 1920s, and
---Incorrect... tense changed by the use of included....

Excellent observation dentobizz. This is a very subtle problem. I was almost about to respond to your comment pointing out that the introduction of as well as is incorrect. But once you read it carefully, the sentence is talking about two distinct things. The first is the speculative bubble in the three areas and the second is the obsession. Answer choice B cleverly handles this distinction. There might be some room for argument around the possible impact that using as well as with the obsession part has when compared to the speculation because as well as lends more weight to one of the two (which can alter the meaning slightly).

For other readers, remember that as well as is not a synonym for and. It is more like saying 'not only...but also'. In this case, choice B means that the examples include not only the speculative bubble in... but also the obsession. IMO, the split between 'Coined from the seventeenth-century tulip craze in the Netherlands' and 'coined from the tulip craze of the seventeenth-century in the Netherlands' is false one.

Ok, so there 2 examples broadly speaking for "tulipomania":
1) Speculative bubbles: (3 more examples here) South Seas trading rights in the 1720s, Victorian real estate in the 1880s, and the U.S. stock market in the 1920s
2) AND the obsession: (1 example here) Beanie Babies in the 1990s.

A) Examples of "tulipomania," a term coined from the tulip craze of the seventeenth-century in the Netherlands, include speculative bubbles in South Seas trading rights in the 1720s, Victorian real estate in the 1880s, the U.S. stock market in the 1920s, and
Here, it is though "speculative bubbles", "Victorian real estate", "the U.S. stock market" and "the obsession of Beanie Babies" are ALL parallel. This is clearly incorrect.

B) Examples of "tulipomania," a term coined from the seventeenth-century tulip craze in the Netherlands, include speculative bubbles in South Seas trading rights in the 1720s, Victorian real estate in the 1880s, and the U.S. stock market in the 1920s, as well as
Here, it correctly differentiates between "speculative bubbles" in 3 regions AND (or "as well as" as used in the option) "the obsession" in 1 region.

C) Coined from the seventeenth-century tulip craze in the Netherlands, examples of "tulipomania" include speculative bubbles in South Seas trading rights in the 1720s, Victorian real estate in the 1880s, and the U.S. stock market in the 1920s, as well as
"Coined from..." needs to modify "tulipomania" and not "examples of "tulipomania""

D) Coined from the seventeenth-century tulip craze in the Netherlands, "tulipomania" includes examples such as speculative bubbles in South Seas trading rights in the 1720s, Victorian real estate in the 1880s, the U.S. stock market in the 1920s, and
1) Corrects the modifier error of option C.
2) BUT Repeats the parallelism error of option A.

E) "Tulipomania," coined from the seventeenth-century tulip craze in the Netherlands, included speculative bubbles in South Seas trading rights in the 1720s,
Victorian real estate in the 1880s, the U.S. stock market in the 1920s, and
1) Repeats the parallelism error of option A.
2) "Tulipomania" is given past tense "included", however, from the original meaning it looks as if the term still describes the scenario and represents a fact. So, we need a present tense, preferably "include"

In B, Examples include SOMETHING, which were all the past tense like 1720s, 1880s, and 1920s, as well as 1980s. Here, every list is from past event. So, why we use INCLUDE here. Shouldn't it be INCLUDED?

Analogy:
I got (past form of GET) admission in Harvard university in 2000 for Masters program, in Stanford university in 2002 for MBA program, in University of California in 2007 for Phd program.

So, is it possible to write:
I gEt (present form of verb) admission in Harvard university in 2000 for Masters program, in Stanford university in 2002 for MBA program, in University of California in 2007 for Phd program.


or, am I missing something?
Thanks...

Even in the present the examples still INCLUDE those events . The issue is not when the incidents HAPPENED, but when those issues are/ were INCLUDED - it's not that the examples no longer include; they still do.

Use of simple past is restricted to those incidents that started and completed in the past. The action "include" is still happening and will continue to.

In the example that you mentioned, the act "get" started and completed in the past. I am no longer getting admission; hence use of simple past is alright.

Hi ,
in option A and B, it is said:
A) a term coined from the tulip craze of the seventeenth-century
B) a term coined from the seventeenth-century tulip craze

what is the basic difference between above two versions?

also, in A, why didn't we make a list of 4 things?
A) Examples include speculative bubbles in South Seas trading rights in the 1720s, Victorian real estate in the 1880s, the U.S. stock market in the 1920s, and the obsession for Beanie Babies in the 1990s.

also in B, Examples include SOMETHING, which were all the past tense like 1720s, 1880s, and 1920s, as well as 1980s. Here, every list is from past event. So, why we use INCLUDE here. Shouldn't it be INCLUDED?

Analogy:
I got (past form of GET) admission in Harvard university in 2000 for Masters program, in Stanford university in 2002 for MBA program, in University of California in 2007 for Phd program.
So, is it possible to write:
I gEt (present form of verb) admission in Harvard university in 2000 for Masters program, in Stanford university in 2002 for MBA program, in University of California in 2007 for Phd program.


or, am I missing something?
Thanks...

B. Examples of "tulipomania," a term coined from the seventeenth-century'S tulip craze in the Netherlands, include speculative bubbles in South Seas trading rights in the 1720s, Victorian real estate in the 1880s, and the U.S. stock market in the 1920s, as well as
in B, can we use apostrophe (') like the above one?
i want to mean: is it seventeenth-century tulip craze or seventeenth-century'S tulip craze?
Thanks Ron...

Both the usages would be correct - seventeenth century´s is a possessive noun whereas seventeenth-century is an adjective. Either can be used to modifiy "tulip craze".

Note the dash between seventeenth and century when used as adjective. The dash would not be required if possessive form is used.

The first three items must be grouped separately because the preposition "in" covers those three.

.. IN (A, B and C) = (IN A), (IN B) and (IN C).

However the preposition IN should not cover the fourth item "obsession".

In other words, the speculative bubbles were IN A (South Seas trading rights in the 1720s), B (Victorian real estate in the 1880s), and C (the U.S. stock market in the 1920s), but not in D (the obsession for Beanie Babies in the 1990s). Here "speculative bubbles" and "obsession" are parallel - These are the two things that are included in the examples of "Tulipomania".

I'm Confused between A and D

B is incorrect because and the , as well as construction seems awkward
C is incorrect because examples is being modified by the previous modifier
E is incorrect tense

Do kindly provide your thoughts on the correct answer

It is important to note that there are two series in this topic namely 1. The speculative bubbles in A, B and C and (or) as well as 2. The obsession in.
Let me repeat that the last item in the first speculative list should be separated by a comma plus 'and'.

Now, if go through the choices, we can find that choices B and C only fall with the ambit of the parallelism template. After reaching this decisive milestone, it is not hard to dislodge C for its faulty modification. B remains the winner.

Because the word "Tulipomania" is within apostrophe, it is a term and not the phenomenon itself. Examples of "Tulipomania" could not have been coined from tulip craze. Hence E, C and D are out. Now between A and B, B is better - Daagh Sir has already explained this above.

For questions containing lists, " and"
We need to read the meaning and content
Then categorize them into different categories

Option B is trying to say examples of tulipomania include speculative bubbles in south sea trading rights in the 1720s,speculative bubble in victorian real estate in the 1880s,and speculative bubbles in the US stock market in the 1920s, as well as the obsession for Beanie babies in the 1990s. Speculative bubble won't apply to the last item because it won't make sense for us to say speculative bubbles in the obsession for Beanie babies. Option B rectifies parallelism issue from the given sentence and it is the correct option.
Option C has a Dangling modifier problem as the phrase 'Coined from the seventeenth-century tulip craze in the Netherlands,'doesn't have a subject to modify. So option C is wrong. Option E changes the subject of the sentence. 'Tulipomania' is the subject in option E which is not what the sentence is trying to convey.In the original sentence The term 'Tulipomania' is the subject. So E is also wrong