Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requiring serious

I think problem with ur version is :
Obsession with is not correct idiom ---obsession for is correct ..
It changes the meaning also "as a wealthy German businessman had an obsession with antiquity" but original does not have relation between wealth and his obsession .

Got it! Thanks for your wonderful explanation!

Have a nice day!

Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requiring serious scholarship often cite as an example Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had been hoping to unearth, deploying fifteen sticks of dynamite in the substratum containing relics of ancient Troy.

A) as an example Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had been hoping to unearth, deploying - WRONG - cite , as an example - redundant

B) Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth when he deployed - CORRECT

C) Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman, whose obsession for antiquity unwittingly destroyed to a great degree artifacts he hoped to unearth, deploying - WRONG - change in meaning - as if obsession destroyed

D) Heinrich Schliemann as an example, a wealthy German businessman who had an obsession with antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth, and who deployed - WRONG - same error as A, - cite , as an example - redundant

E) Heinrich Schliemann, who as a wealthy German businessman had an obsession with antiquity; he unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had hoped to unearth when he had been deploying - WRONG - missing verb in first independent clause, which is not even an sentence.

Official Explanation Magoosh :

After the underlined phrase we have "… and who yet inspired …," another "who" clause in parallel. We might expect at least one "who" clause to be in parallel with this. Technically, another kind of noun modifier might be in parallel with a "who" clause modifier. It will depend on the exact construction.

In the choice (A) version of the sentence, we have "who was … and who unwittingly destroyed … and who yet inspired …" This is the somewhat awkward parallel structure of "X and Y and Z," rather than the more natural "X, Y, and Z." Also, this has the very unusual tense of past perfect progressive "had been hoping"---there is no reason for this to be progressive. Choice (A) is incorrect.

Choice (B) provides no first "who" clause to be in parallel with the one after the underlined section. The absolute phrases noun modifiers parallel to the "who" clause noun modifier is technically correct but less than ideal. Also, it makes perfect sense to say that Schliemann "unwittingly destroyed" the artifacts, but it is awkward to say that he was "the unwitting destroyer" of the artifact. The "unwitting" aspect and the "destroying" pertain to one action, not to who the person was. Choice (B) is wrong.

Choice (C) is clear, with no grammar or logic errors. This is a promising choice.

Choice (D) begins with an redundancy: "cite as an example." The GMAT is never fond of redundancy. This create false parallelism, mechanically putting every single verb into parallel with no regard for the logical relationships. Choice (D) is wrong.

In Choice (E), the "when" + [participle] structure is questionable. The big problem is the semicolon break. A colon would work better, but a semicolon creates too much of a divide between the ideas in the first and second halves.

To explain further: the problem with the "when + participle" construction in this answer is not the construction itself, but the context that it occurs in. In Choice (E), "when deploying" occurs within an independent clause (after the semi-colon). This disconnects "when deploying" from the parallelism (the who that is doing the deploying).

Choice (C), however, does not have the "when + participle" construction in a separate clause. Thus, it forms an appropriate parallelism that makes clear, logical sense. In other words, "when deploying" is questionable after the semi-colon, as in Choice (E), but is perfectly clear and acceptable in Choice (C).

Thus, choice (C) is the best answer.

In choice C , the subject is the obsession and it is doing the work of destroying. metaphorically this may sound right. But in this context is it right? how can obssession destroy the further mentioned?

A) as an example Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had been hoping to unearth, deploying -- Incorrect. Modifier error. Cite X as an example.

B) Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth when he deployed -- Correct.

C) Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman, whose obsession for antiquity unwittingly destroyed to a great degree artifacts he hoped to unearth, deploying -- Incorrect. Modifier error. The verb-ing modifier "deploying" distorts the meaning.

D) Heinrich Schliemann as an example, a wealthy German businessman who had an obsession with antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth, and who deployed -- Incorrect. Modifier placement error. All the modifier errors seem to be not modifying HS.

E) Heinrich Schliemann, who as a wealthy German businessman had an obsession with antiquity; he unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had hoped to unearth when he had been deploying -- Incorrect. "he had been deploying" is incorrect. He hoped to unearth after the deployment of firesticks.


Question to experts -- in B, shouldn't past perfect be used? "had deployed" since hope to unearth would occur after the deployment of firesticks.

ravigupta2912 First, remember that we're not required to use past perfect when we describe a past event that precedes another. If the meaning's clear, we can do without it. We simply can't use it in any other case. In other words, describing past events from two different times is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for using past perfect.

Second, it's quite possible that Schliemann was hoping to unearth the artifacts at the exact time that he destroyed them. That's how he got into trouble! He didn't want to unearth them, then stop wanting them before destroying them.

A) as an example Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had been hoping to unearth, deploying
deploying isn't the right tense which distorts the meaning

B) Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth when he deployed
The commas placement is perfect the tense is perfect and the meaning is also correct therefore let us hang on to it

C) Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman, whose obsession for antiquity unwittingly destroyed to a great degree artifacts he hoped to unearth, deploying
deploying isn't the right usage since he had already destroyed the antiques and artifacts

D) Heinrich Schliemann as an example, a wealthy German businessman who had an obsession with antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth, and who deployed
and who deployed idn't the right meaning and tense since it had already happened in the past

E) Heinrich Schliemann, who as a wealthy German businessman had an obsession with antiquity; he unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had hoped to unearth when he had been deploying
he had been deploying isn't the right usage and distorts the meaning therefore out

Therefore IMO B

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.