The rare bird, considered extinct for over fifty years and actually

Hello, riagarg07. I am not sure why, exactly, but this question just resonated with me, and I answered it correctly in 41 seconds. Note that SC is not about racing to get the answer, but about understanding how to eliminate the answers you are sure are incorrect. In this particular instance, I was certain about one flaw or another in all four of the other answer choices. My analysis is meant to assist you and the larger community, with no disrespect to anyone who has posted before. The first thing to note with the sentence at hand is that the whole thing is underlined, so there ought to be several key differences that emerge as we compare different answers.


I took the longest considering this one. It is not a problem to place an -ed modifier in parallel with an -ing modifier, as this classic official question shows, so considered... and... thriving is not an issue in and of itself. However, I wanted and to be while instead, something to show that although the bird was considered extinct, it had, in reality, been thriving all along in a certain remote location. And simply does not convey the same meaning.


Another answer that just misses the mark. The conjunction problem has been addressed, but now we are introduced to a different problem in the subject it. Without this seemingly fitting pronoun, we would have parallel verbs to agree with the subject which, a stand-in itself for the rare bird. It can be useful to consider each clause independently with the rare bird at the head:

1) the rare bird had been considered extinct for over fifty years

BUT

2) the rare bird was actually thriving in a remote part of the Andes

This makes sense. The past perfect tense in the first clause indicates an earlier action than the one indicated by the simple past in the second clause. Here, the two clauses are bound by the conjunction and can be interchanged, with which, again, serving as the subject of each (i.e. which A but [which] B). By placing it at the head of the second clause, we rupture the parallelism and create a second independent clause, and we would expect to see a comma before but to avoid creating a run-on sentence. Consider the following sentence:

3) the rare bird had been considered extinct for over fifty years but it was actually thriving in a remote part of the Andes

These two clauses are not interchangeable. (The rare bird, it was actually thriving...) We simply cannot ignore this grammatical problem introduced by it. It breaks a parallel construct and creates a run-on sentence simultaneously. That sounds pretty awful, right?


Now it is the notion that the bird was considered extinct that adopts the simple past while its actual status adopts the past perfect, had actually been thriving. As before, the parallel elements are not in conflict. The sentence conveys that even as people believed the bird was extinct, it had, in reality, been thriving all along in this remote area of the world. The only real issue here is with the usage of the conjunction and, which should instead signal a proper contrast, as explained earlier. I have highlighted the alteration of the verb shift in the main clause from the present perfect has made in previous answer choices to the simple past made here. Although I prefer the earlier iteration to illustrate an ongoing action that has taken place over the last decade, there is no reason we absolutely cannot cap off a ten-year period by using the simple past:

The rare bird... made a remarkable comeback over the previous decade.

Once again, a single problem here proves fatal for the prospects of the answer choice.


This version of the sentence creates two independent clauses, opting for a simple past construct in each. The second independent clause contains the two parallel elements, it was actually thriving and [it] has made a remarkable comeback. The phrase over the past decade delays the second element, so the double commas surrounding it are appropriate. (A good test for double commas is to see whether the sentence is comprehensible with the self-contained phrase or clause removed, and here, you can see that the sentence would be palatable without the phrase in question.) I have highlighted the comma before the second element, as I am calling it, because it is not strictly necessary. When dealing with lengthier phrases or clauses with two elements, it is more of a stylistic choice whether to use a comma between them. I have commented on this issue recently in another post on a question that incorporates the same convention, here. In short, there are a few talking points in this answer choice, but there is nothing to argue against outright, so it is the best option so far.


There is some false parallelism going on here in the form of an apparent list. The shell of the sentence suggests that the rare bird A, B, and C—was considered... was actually thriving... and has made—but with the first two items in the list taking on a was form, we find it jarring to suddenly encounter a has in front of the third item. Removing the initial was and turning considered... into a modifier would bypass the issue altogether, but you can only go by what is on the screen. Speaking of which, I am assuming that an remarkable comeback is a typo, so I did not mark it in red. The only time I have seen an used without a vowel sound following it is when, on occasion, we get a soft consonant instead, as in, an historic moment.

There you have it. I have done the best I can to illustrate what guided my thought process as I combed through the answer choices. There is a lot to talk about in this question for sure, but I hope I have put everything together in a way that is useful to you.

Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew