The tripartite division of Louis the Pious' empire in the Treaty of

rahul6019 - How absorbed will modify division ? And will it be parallel structure? another hint -- think what this part is doing --- "attacking centralized Lotharingia"

According to me the ans should be A, as the division ushered and absorbed the short lived kingdom.

pl. let me know whether my thinking is correct or not

Snigdha

SnigdhaM: I don't think this is the correct explanation. This is flawed because of a number of reasons :

1. a comma(,) and the word "and" must be used in case of an independent clause, which is not the case here. As per this rule, only B(best) and E fit. I read somewhere comma+and more on the stylistic ground, rather than on the technical ground. SO we cannot take a decision based on this rule only.
2. Parallelism is not maintained. -- making common cause, attacking centralized Lotharingia - usage of and is required in b/w these two verb+ing modifiers. - C is the best option here
3. Meaning issue -- Kings were engaged in three things - making common cause, attacking a place and finally absorbing. C is the winner here.

Above points are based on my understanding.

sudarshan22, GMATNinja, aragonn, GMATNinjaTwo, broall, hazelnut, generis, Vyshak

Dear experts: can you please let us know your thoughts on point #1.

Regards,
Arup

snigdha , I can see how you might prefer the division thus:
. . . ushered in an era of warfare . . . and absorbed the short-lived kingdom,
but that construction does not account for an intended list of three, and does not create sensible meaning.

We have two problems.

First, we have the setup for a list of three: X-ing, Y-ing, and Z-ing.
• There is no AND between "making common cause, attacking central Lotharingia"
• There IS a non-underlined comma + and.
X, Y, and Z makes sense

Second, "ushered in warfare" and "absorbed a kingdom" don't make sense.

An empire was divided into three parts ("tripartite").
Two kings conspired against the third by attacking the third king's land (Lotharingia) and absorbing his short-lived kingdom quickly.
The two kings of East and West Francia absorbed the third kingdom into their kingdoms.
The division of the empire did not absorb the "short-lived" kingdom.

If we use "absorbing," then it becomes the third in a list of three, such that
-- making . . . , attacking . . . , and absorbing
both make a list and make sense in a manner that "ushered . . . absorbed" do not.

This sentence is not hard; it is detailed and annoying.

The tripartite division of Louis the Pious' empire in the Treaty of Verdun ushered in an era of internecine warfare, with the kings of East and West Francia making common cause, attacking centralized Lotharingia, and ______ the short-lived kingdom quickly over the course of a few generations.

• Break the sentence apart
The tripartite division of an empire ushered in an era of intragroup warfare "with" [=that included] two kings
• making common cause (ganging up on the third king)
• attacking Lotharingia (the third king's land), and
• absorbing [the third king's] short-lived kingdom over a short time span.

• Break the sentence apart even more simply and watch meaning
An empire that was divided into three parts created an era of warfare in which two kings colluded to take the third part of the land from its king.
Watch the mention of kings.
Part 1: the king of East Francia
Part 2: the king of West Francia
Part 3: the king of the short-lived kingdom of Lotharingia, which was short-lived because its king had
manipulative and cutthroat brothers.

The two creepy brothers were
-- making common cause
-- attacking Lotharingia, COMMA AND
-- absorbING the short-lived kingdom (over a short span of time).

• Slightly diagrammed
The tripartite division of empire (subject)
ushered (verb)
in (preposition)
an era (object of the preposition)
----of warfare (prepositional modifier of era)
---------------with (= that included)
-------------------------the kings of East F and West F
-----------------------------making common causes (colluding against the third king)
-----------------------------attacking Lotharingia, COMMA AND
-----------------------------absorbing the short-lived kingdom [quickly]. The "short-lived kingdom" was the third part of the tripartite division of empire.

• Parallelism: making, attacking, and absorbing

Answer C

arup, nice work!
Meaning controls. I was writing my post when you posted yours.

Hmm. I do not subscribe to the theory that stylistically, better sentences are composed of two ICs
separated by a comma and an "and."
In fact, writers try to vary sentences with many types of constructions.

In any event, the structure of the sentence calls for (C).
We have a list: Item #1, Item #2, and ______
Only the blank is underlined.

We did not choose to leave out an "and" between Item #1 and Item #2 (making common cause, attacking Lotharingia)
We did not choose to place a comma + and at the end of two noun phrases separated by a comma.
We don't have much of a choice.
X-ing, Y-ing, and Z-ing is the only structure that will work.

As you note, meaning also calls for option (C).

The empire is divided into three parts.
Two kings conspired against a third.

During that conspiracy, the two kings were doing three things:
(1) making common cause, (2) attacking Lotharingia, and (3) absorbing [that third king's] short-lived kingdom

Hope that helps!

It does help. First kudo from an expert is indeed special . Thanks

Sent from my Redmi 3S using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Question Explanation

Because the underlined portion of the sentence is a verb, and that verb is part of a list, check that all the items in the list have the same form. The list consists of the verb forms making, attacking, and absorbed. The first two are present participles, while the third is past tense, so the items on the list do not have the same form. This is a parallel construction error. Eliminate choice A and look for obvious repeaters. Choices B uses the word absorbed, so eliminate choice B. Choice E also uses the word absorbed, so eliminate choice E as well. Now evaluate the remaining answer choices individually, looking for reasons to eliminate each.

Choice C corrects the original error by using the present participle absorbing and commits no new errors, so keep C. Choice D incorrectly uses the subjunctive verb would absorb, which is not parallel to the other items in the list. Eliminate D.

Choice A: No. Absorbed is not parallel to making and attacking. Parallel construction.

Choice B: No. Absorbed is not parallel to making and attacking. Parallel construction.

Choice C: Correct.

Choice D: No. Would absorb is not parallel to making and attacking. Parallel construction.

Choice E: Absorbed is not parallel to making and attacking. Parallel construction.

The correct answer is choice C.