Tom Bradley was mayor of Los Angeles from 1973 to 1993, an era when

Initially went for C, but stopped at B
To be clear, answer choices are modifying a period, or "era" in this instance, between 1973 and 1993. As such, "during" can not modify "period" and, therefore D & E are out!

(A) an era when the city had transformed
(B) an era during which the city was transformed
(C) an era that transformed it
(D) during which era the city transformed <-- during which era is awkward, besides that I do not know any other reason for eliminating this
(E) during which the city was transformed <-- again, sounds awkward, we need to mention era

this was a tough one but B it is. OA is B as well (This is 1000 SC # 988)

E

E is shorter than B and conveys the same meaning. Always pick the shorter answers.

988. Tom Bradley was mayor of Los Angeles from 1973 to 1993, an era when the city had transformed from a collection of suburban neighborhoods to the second-largest city in the United States.

(A) an era when the city had transformed - had is used to specify that something occured before something else, which is no needed here.
(B) an era during which the city was transformed - Why introduce 'an era'? No need. E says the same thing but more elegantly. Wrong.
(C) an era that transformed it - The era did not transform the city, it was transformed DURING that time.
(D) during which era the city transformed - Era is misplaced. Awkward.
(E) during which the city was transformed - Ding Ding. Correct.

Not getting the correct explanation how to cancel E.
B. an era during which the city was transformed
E. during which the city was transformed

I believe during which can properly refer back to from 1973 to 1993. am i wrong here.
Can someone post some tips one usage of during which.

Hi Sujit,

As I read the question the issue is that in answer E the 'during which' is unclear B is a far clearer way of expressing the sentence.

By adding in the words 'an era' it makes it totally unambigious what 'during which' refers to.

James

Hello Friends,
Correct Answer is B.

A) had transformed is not required here. Also an era when is awkward. An era during which transformation taken place is better than an era when the transformation taken place.

B) This choice converts the whole second clause into a modifier that modifies the period from 1973 to 1993. avoids all unnecessary tense shifts. Correct Choice.

C) the era itself didn't transform the city. Passive voice is required since the subject is unknown. City was transformed from x to y.

D) correct structure is subject - compliment. This choice is structured as (complement(subject)complement)

E) no clear referrent for which. It is doubtful whether which can modify prepositional phrase from 1973 to 1993.

Hi ramanujanu,

Lets consider (C)

C. An era that transformed it.

Tom Bradley was mayor of Los Angeles from 1973 to 1993, an era that transformed it from a collection of suburban neighborhoods to the second-largest city in the United States.



Yes "an era" in itself is a time span. But, when we say "an era that transformed transformed it", it means that "the era" transformed the city; this is not what the sentence intends to say. It is intended in the sentence that the city was transformed in this era and not by this era. "during which" in B is not redundant because it makes it clear that during this time span (an era) the city got transformed.



"it" may refer to "Los Angeles" . If you want to refer to "Los Angeles", the use of "the city" or "Los Anglees" would be better. This answer choice is incorrect because it does not express the intended meaning.

Hope it helps,

Vercules

Please note that my comment below does not pertain to the Tom Bradley question. It is specific to the comment above.

Pronoun can refer to noun that resides in prepositional phrase.
There is no grammar rule that prohibits the pronoun from referring to the noun inside the prepositional phrase. Please please please do not follow such baseless rules. The only thing that governs the reference of pronoun is that there should not be any ambiguity in terms of what the pronoun refers to. You should not be scratching your head thinking whether the pronoun refers to noun 1 or noun 2 or noun 3. Here are a few correct official sentences. Pay close attention to the highlighted pronoun and antecedents:

In ancient Thailand, much of the local artisans’ creative energy was expended on the creation of Buddha images as well as constructing and decoration of the temples in which they were enshrined.

The plot of The Bostonians centers on the rivalry that develops between Olive Chancellor, an active feminist, and Basil Ransom, her charming and cynical cousin, when they find themselves drawn to the same radiant young woman whose talent for public speaking has won her an ardent following.

It was only after Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers, and it was under her command that the paper won high praise for its unrelenting reporting of the Watergate scandal.

Hope this helps clarify the misconception.

Thanks,

Payal

B is the best choice - (Appositive) -- Emphasis is on the ERA, when Y was Mayor.

A - incorrect - Cannot be past and past-perfect at the same time - "the city has transformed"

C - incorrect - use of it - ambiguous

D, E - incorrect - use of "during" is wrong in D and E because there is no antecedent for "during which" .

We need 'an era' as an appositive otherwise the clauses at the end would modify the year instead of the period

Source:
https://gmatsentencecorrection.blogspot. ... 7-988.html

Point 1: 1993 is a year, not an era- Eliminate D, E

Point 2: the wording in D is also strange, 'during which era' does not make sense

Point 3: 'era' did not transform the city! Eliminate C

Point 4: Past perfect tense is not needed, keep it simple! Eliminate A

Point 5: usage of when as a modifier of era in A, in the context of this question, is a bot suspicious for me

[color=#0000ff]Point 1: 1993 is a year, not an era- Eliminate D, E[/color]
from 1973 to 1993 is an era...
Point 2: the wording in D is also strange, 'during which era' does not make sense

Point 3: 'era' did not transform the city! Eliminate C

Point 4: Past perfect tense is not needed, keep it simple! Eliminate A

Point 5: usage of when as a modifier of era in A, in the context of this question, is a bot suspicious for me

Good Question!

But 'which' is a noun modifier; it normally modifies the noun (or in special cases, the noun phrase) before it.

What can which modify in E? Either '1997' (this does not make sense, because city was not transformed during only 1997) or another noun phrase before it. Unfortunately 'from 1973 to 1997' is not a noun (or noun phrase); therefore, 'which' cannot be used to modify it. Instead, we can use an absolute phrase as in B

+1 B

Tom Bradley was mayor of Los Angeles from 1973 to 1993, an era when the city had transformed from a collection of suburban neighborhoods to the second-largest city in the United States.

(A) an era when the city had transformed

Unnecessary use of had

(B) an era during which the city was transformed

Correctly modifies era,during which and use of simple past

(C) an era that transformed it

era did not transformed anything

(D) during which era the city transformed

Which has no clear antecedent

(E) during which the city was transformed

Which has no antecedent.

Hey Experts,

Small doubt, Era and during both are representing time period. Is there any redundancy ???

JiddiHuMain There's not redundancy, since "during" introduces a modifier that applies to "era." Similarly, we say "This happened at a time when X was happening." We need "when" to create a modifier that describes what was happening at the time we want to specify. We can also say "During an era." Now if I said, "During the 40's, there was an era of great change," that would be redundant, since I could just say that the the 40's *was* an era of great change, or that in the 40's, great change happened.

This question is based on Modifiers and Verb forms.

The past perfect tense is used to convey the earlier action in a sentence in which two actions are mentioned.
E.g.: The flight had landed before we reached the airport.
In this sentence, there is no earlier action mentioned, so, the past perfect tense ‘had transformed’ is incorrect. The adverb ‘when’ is used to convey the time of an action but in this sentence, a period is mentioned. So, Option A can be ruled out.

In Option B, the simple past tense in the passive ‘was transformed’ appropriately conveys the phenomenon. The underlined portion is in the form of an absolute modifier that contains the noun ‘era’ and a description of what happened during the era. Since an era is a significant period of time, the prepositional phrase ‘during which’ modifies it appropriately and conveys the intended meaning. So, B is the best of all the options.

Option C distorts the meaning. It was not the era that transformed the city; the city was merely transformed during the era. So, Option C can be eliminated.

In Option D, the subject of the prepositional phrase ‘during which’ is not clear. So, Option D can also be ruled out.

In Option E, the relative pronoun ‘which’ could be referring to 1993 or the period from 1973 to 1993. Since the pronoun reference is ambiguous, Option E can also be ruled out.

Therefore, B is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.

In option C , 'it' doesn't refer to Los Angeles? What is the ambiguity?
In option B, can 'which' be used to refer to a specific time point?

egmat