Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requiring serious

kindly suggest how "when deploying" is correct ?

Those who fault the intrusion of amateurs into areas requiring serious scholarship often cite Heinrich Schliemann, who was a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity and who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had been hoping to unearth, when he deployed fifteen sticks of dynamite in the substratum containing relics of ancient Troy and who yet inspired legions of similarly inexperienced men to enter the field.

A Heinrich Schliemann,who was a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity and who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he had been hoping to unearth, when he deployed

If we eliminate the appositives then we get the construction " HS when he deployed" which is incorrect.

B Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity and the unwitting destroyer of the very artifacts he had hoped to unearth when he deployed

"the unwitting destroyer". Here unwitting acts as a adjective (i guess) and it gives a meaning that this is some kind of title attributed to him, which is not. plus the construction is awkward(damn i hate to eliminate anything as such on awkwardness)

C Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth when deploying

Ok. the clink sounds during the usage of "deploying". What is the function here? Its definitely a modifier. What does it do ? It is describing how HP destroyed the very thing he sought out . Hence correct because it is modifying destroyed. Plus destroyed and inspired are parallel.

D as an example Heinrich Schliemann, a wealthy German businessman who had an obsession for antiquity, who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth, and who deployed

i guess cite and "as an example " are redundant. if we complete the sentence then it seems like :
"who unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth, and who deployed fifteen sticks of dynamite in the substratum containing relics of ancient Troy and who yet inspired legions of similarly inexperienced men to enter the field. "
how many "and". Three different things in a list ?? incorrect.

E Heinrich Schliemann, who was a wealthy German businessman with an obsession for antiquity; he unwittingly destroyed the very artifacts he hoped to unearth when deploying

Why semicolon ? Why do we need a break there to start an IC. Plus the first part of sentence seems incomplete. The usage of comma to denote a non essential modifier doesn't come into play and the sentence stops abruptly. Hence incorrect.

These are my thoughts. Are they correct ?
Experts do help
sayantanc2k mikemcgarry GMATNinja

this option has //ism issue


//ism issue


seems ok.


as an example seems awkward also this option can solely be rejected because of the //ism issue


awkward construct

MAGOOSH OE:

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.

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.