Some scholars of English literature believe that the disparate reactio

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION



THE PROMPT

• PARALLELISM
The sentence indicates that different reactions to poetry can be explained by two things, which need to be made parallel.

Note the non-underlined portion: the word by is placed after the word and in that non-underlined portion:
. . . and by its convoluted, often foreign, tone.

In order to maintain parallelism, there must be a by earlier in the sentence as well.
From left to right, we can often omit words, though typically prepositions are not omitted in the X and Y construction because prepositions make it easier to identify where the Y-element begins.

But if a word shows up on the right side of two items joined by and, it must also show up in the item that comes before and.
We are free to omit words from left to right to the point that the sentence still makes sense.
By contrast, almost always, we are not free to insert words in the right-hand element that are not present in the preceding left hand element.

• The word where?
→ Contrary to near-universal aspirant belief, the word where is not restricted to an actual physical location.
Mind you, the alternative usage is rare—but that usage exists.
See Notes, below.

→ The word where is not a decision point because where is in all five options.

THE OPTIONS

• Nonsensical meaning
→ Explained as makes no sense.
Explained as is used to say that though you thought you witnessed ABC, in fact, ABC can be or is explained by the fact that ABC is really something else or is an aberration.
At trial, his uncharacteristic shouting was explained as a side effect of an accidental overdose of decongestants, which can cause agitation.
→ Different reactions to poetry cannot be explained as its disorienting quality.
→ Idiomatically, in the situation in this sentence, we use "can be explained BY."

• Not parallel to "by its convoluted, often foreign, tone."
→ Different reactions can be explained . . . BY X and BY Y.
Y = its convoluted, often foreign, tone.
X = its disorienting quality
→ AS is not parallel to BY
ELIMINATE A


• Subject/verb disagreement
The plural subject reactions does not agree with the singular verb is.

• AS is problematic: just as in option A, the word as both makes no sense and breaks parallelism
ELIMINATE B


• Hot mess: this whole sentence is a disaster. It makes very little sense.

• Subject/verb disagreement
→ The singular subject all [(that) you thought you knew] does not agree with the plural verb cease.

• being

• AS is problematic: just as in option A, the word as both makes no sense and breaks parallelism
ELIMINATE C


• Subject/verb disagreement
→ The singular subject all [(that) you thought you knew] does not agree with the plural verb cease.

• are explainable by
→ this inherently passive construction just got a bit flabby in comparison to option E: the adjective explainable is not as strong as the verb phrase can be explained
ELIMINATE d

• explained by makes sense and maintains parallelism with the subsequent "by" phrase
• singular subject all [(that) you thought you knew] agrees with singular verb ceases
KEEP

The answer is E.

NOTES

jrk23 wrote:

Yes. The subject is the noun clause "all [that] you thought you knew in the world."


Sure. In this case, all is singular.
The word all can be singular or plural.
If a singular noun follows, then all is singular and takes a singular verb.
→ All of the cherry pie was eaten, but some of the apple pie was untouched. = The entire cherry pie was eaten.

If a plural noun follows, then all is plural and takes a plural verb.
→ All of the pies were eaten. = Every single pie was eaten.

The phrase all [that] you thought you knew in daily life is a singular noun clause (a.k.a a nominal or substantive clause).

When all is paired with a noun clause, all is singular.
With few exceptions, noun clauses, about which you you can read in the link below, are singular.

This construction is fairly rare; you are more likely to see the noun clause "everything [that] you thought you knew about daily life ceases to exist."

For information about noun clauses, take a look at this post, here, about noun clauses, and scroll down to "substantive clauses."

Most of you will get this SC down to options D and E.

Now you have a 50-50 shot at getting the question correct.

If you have no idea how to decide the "all" issue, fall back onto something else.

As winterschool points out, compare are explainable by with can be explained by and follow the general style rule that verbs trump adjectives.

Correct examples are good.
Correct: All [that] we once believed about disease has changed.
Correct: All [that] he knew about her was based on observation.

• WHERE
→ Although the word is not a decision point in this question, I often try to familiarize you with exceptions to patterns that you have learned.

Where can refer to some words that we do not typically associate with a physical place.

In one official question, for example, where refers to society.
SPOILER ALERTS: That official question is HERE.
In another official question, where refers to community.
That official question is HERE.

COMMENTS

I am glad to see you all.
For the most part, the analysis is thoughtful and the answers are quite good.
Kudos to those who displayed a positive effort.