Thomas Nast whose cartoons called for an end to corruption and were

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION


THE PROMPT

• Meaning?
Thomas Nast or his cartoons or even both played a key role in bringing several corrupt politicians and their associates to justice.

If intended meaning is not immediately apparent, do not panic.
We can glean intended meaning from the options.
In the end, the grammatical sentence left standing tells us the intended meaning.

Option A does not determine intended meaning. I address the issue in Notes, below, and link you to posts that contain analysis and evidence.
This urban legend dies hard.

• relative pronouns (whose)
→ As I have mentioned, if you see a relative pronoun (usually that, who, and which, but also whom or whose), start looking for at least two working verbs in the sentence, because a relative pronoun is the subject of a clause and requires its own verb.
Once that verb is "eaten up" by the relative pronoun, the verb cannot be used by the main subject.

I wrote about how to cope with relative pronouns and modifiers in a bit more depth this post, below.

THE OPTIONS

• missing verb
→ strip the sentence of its nonessential modifiers. Anything set off by commas is fair game.
Original: Thomas Nast, whose cartoons called for an end to corruption and were published in leading newspapers and magazines, including Newsweek, and these cartoons played a key role in bringing several corrupt politicians and their associates to justice.[/i]

Stripped: Thomas Nast . . . and these cartoons played a key role in bringing several corrupt politicians and their associates to justice.
→ No verb exists for Thomas Nast. We have a fragment.
Okay, his cartoons did X and Y.
But those cartoons are referenced in a nonessential clause that ends with Newsweek, a clause that we can remove.
The main subject, Thomas Nast, still needs a verb.
ELIMINATE A

• fatally placed modifier or incomplete verb
→ If the word published is supposed to be an adjective that describes cartoons (a participle phrase derived from a reduced relative clause),
then published should be much nearer to cartoons, the noun it modifies, and certainly should not come after the first main verb.

→ In fact, published looks as though it might modify corruption, a setup that is nonsensical.

→ If the word published is supposed to be a verb parallel to called and played, then we need the helping verb were (as in, were published) in order to maintain parallelism among called, WERE published, and helped.
Those three are the simple past tenses in parallel.

Cartoons do not publish themselves, so we must say were published.
In the case of a verb for which it would make no sense to use the active tense with that subject, it is okay to mix a passive tense among active tenses because your hand is forced.

The word published is a horribly misplaced modifier (an adjective) or a non-parallel verb. Either way, the sentence fails.
ELIMINATE B

• insensible modifier or missing verb
→ The verb called cannot belong to Nast or the modifier becomes nonsensical.
True, nonessential modifiers can be "removed," but those modifiers still must make sense.

→ The verb calledcan belong to only one subject.

If called belongs to Nast, then the modifier makes no sense.
The relative pronoun clause lacks a verb. Not okay.

If called belongs to Nast, we are left with:
. . . whose cartoons, published in leading newspapers and magazines . . .[DID WHAT?]
That relative clause subject "whose cartoons" lacks a verb and makes no sense.

→ published is not a verb.
In this instance it is a past participle (a verbED)—an adjective that describes cartoons.
We know that published is a past participle and not a past tense verb because
(1) commas do not come directly between subjects and verbs
(2) cartoons cannot publish themselves and would be required to take the verb were published, which is not what we have.
→ Let's restate: If called belongs to Nast, then whose cartoons is the subject of a relative clause, needs a verb, and does not have one.

→ Alternatively, give called to whose cartoons, and "remove" the whole nonessential clause.
Now Nast, the main subject, has no verb. Also not okay. Remove the whole nonessential clause starting with COMMA + whose.

→ We are left with:
Thomas Nast . . .
→ No verb for the main subject. (No sentence at all.)
ELIMINATE C

• Parallelism error
→ The verbs called and published are not parallel.
Cartoons cannot publish themselves.
We must use were published.
Were published would be parallel to called.
ELIMINATE D

• I do not see any errors
• This option correctly provides the verb played to Nast and creates a sensible whose-clause
• The sentence is grammatical, coherent, and easy to follow.
KEEP

The answer is E.

NOTES

dushyantkanal , you raise a good question about answers that depart from the meaning set out in option A.
The issue causes a lot of confusion.
I know that some test prep companies still teach that we cannot change option A or that option A determines the intended meaning.
All of you will read dozens of posts about the sanctity of option A.

They are all mistaken. No kidding.
Option A does not determine intended meaning.

I have written dozens of posts about this issue.
Other experts have written about this issue.

For a thorough analysis, take a look at this recent post, here in which I cite to two other pertinent posts I wrote, including one that contains official question examples in which option A could not possibly be the intended meaning.

COMMENTS

ganeshadepu1801 , siddharthkapoor , and dushyantkanal , welcome to SC Butler.
I am glad to see new faces these days and hope others will join in, too.

warrior1991 , as always, my friend, you are gracious. Thank you for the kind words.

sumitkrocks and zhanbo, good dialogue.
sumitkrocks , your post here nicely summarizes the accurate and strategic approach to meaning.

This thread is good.
If I were an aspirant, I would read it.

Analysis in posts ranges from very good to outstanding.
Today I will award kudos to all: some for bravery, some for correct answers and excellent analysis.