(A) Traveling the back roads of Hungary, in 1905 Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly began their pioneering work in ethnomusicology, and they were armed only

The subjects 'Bela Bartok' and 'Zoltan Kodaly' should immediately follow the participial phrase 'traveling the back...'

(B) In 1905, Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly, traveling the back roads of Hungary, began their pioneering work in ethnomusicology, and they were only armed

Dropping the adverb 'only' thus splitting the verb phrase, 'were armed', while not clearly wrong, should usually be avoided. Also breaking the sentence up into the independent clauses means that it is not concise.

(C) In 1905 Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly began their pioneering work in ethnomusicology, traveling the back roads of Hungary armed only

This answer choice nicely corrects a problem in (A) and (B). The 'armed only' was separated from the participial phrase 'traveling the back roads..'. Because 'armed only' describes how they traveled (C) combines the two thoughts. In doing so it is concise and obviates the second independent clause.

(D) Having traveled the back roads of Hungary, in 1905 Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly began their pioneering work in ethnomusicology; they were only armed

Same problem as (A).

(E) Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly, in 1905 began their pioneering work in ethnomusicology, traveling the back roads of Hungary, arming themselves only

The '1905' breaking up the subjects and the verb 'began' is awkward.
_________________

clearly "C".


Some fine points:

1. "armed only with X and Y" is correct compare with "only armed with X and Y" bcoz "only" needs to modify - X and Y.

2. "began" and "armed" - Simple past go in parallel with each other.

3. "having travelled" - Pefect participle in choice "D" is worng here.

4. "traveling the back roads of Hungary" needs to modify the subject - "Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly"

please post OA and Explanation.

I agree with option C
(C) In 1905 Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly began their pioneering work in ethnomusicology, traveling the back roads of Hungary armed only

___________ with an Edison phonograph and insatiable curiosity.

A comma is placed to bring a pause in the speech. Words written within 2 commas in a sentence provide additional details, and even if not read, the sentence still retains its meaning.
When stressing on a date of an year, it should be separated from the main sentence by a comma.

(A) Traveling the back roads of Hungary,in 1905 Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly began their pioneering work in ethnomusicology, and they were armed only.
(B) In 1905, Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly, traveling the back roads of Hungary, began their pioneering work in ethnomusicology, and they were only armed,
(D) Having traveled the back roads of Hungary, in 1905 Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly began their pioneering work in ethnomusicology;(incorrect placing of semi colon) they were only armed
(E) Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly, in 1905 began their pioneering work in ethnomusicology, traveling the back roads of Hungary, arming themselves only

Its has to be between A, C and E..But A and E have modifier errors...E is very passive as well...C is the best choice...

1. yep! after 1905, there should be a comma
2. Guess what? Option C is wrong too! But it is the best in the lot.

In 1905 Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly began their pioneering work in ethnomusicology, traveling the back roads of Hungary armed only says Hungarian roads were armed!!

Option C should have read In 1905, Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly began their pioneering work in ethnomusicology, traveling the back roads of Hungary, armed only

These questions are not from 'reliable' sources so you just have to settle with the fact that you have to choose the 'best answer'

The fun in answering such questions is that you kinda get digging deeper into elements of the sentence to find out the error; makes a huge difference in your learning!
_________________

For anwer C to be correct, there has to be a comma before armed. Without comma armed seems to modify Hungary. There has to be some misprint else option B is the best answer.

I selected B because of two reasons.
1. We need to put Noun modifier as close as possible so in (B) "traveling the back roads of Hungary" is closest to Noun "Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly".
2. I think we can not start sentence with "In +year" without following Comma. "Experts please comment"

Example from one report (http://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/girls/report.aspx)
In 2004, the APA Task Force on Advertising and Children produced a report examining broad issues related to advertising to children.

In C, Can someone please explain if "traveling the back roads of Hungary armed only............... insatiable curiosity" is acting as a single modifier to sentence then why is it not modifying ethnomusicology.

Guys, I can not see any clear cut explanation for this problem. Please help.

IMO B. C should have the comma before armed. Thats why B makes sense. additionally travelling correctly modifies the people involved.

In B, the placement of the adverb only creates a problem. It means that only Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly were armed with xxxxx, while nobody else was or were armed. This is altered intent.
_________________

If C is correct then a comma needs to be present after "back roads of Hungary ". If not Option C reads as if the "roads are armed" and not "bela and Zoltan". Please correct if I am wrong.

why do you think that in option C.... traveling the back roads of Hungary armed only is correctly modifying bela and zoltan?
im not sure.
can someone pls explain.??

A - travelling . . . , in 1905 - wrong
B & D - only armed

For me it is between C and E.
E - arming themselves only seems odd

So I pick C

Only armed with vs armed only with...


Only armed with implies that they were only armed with ... blah blah .... There was NOTHING ELSE THAT WAS HAPPENING !!!! They weren't eating, they weren't breathing (0_o)

Whereas armed only with implies that they had nothing other than the phonograph.

The placement of only is of great importance here. For this reason it can't be B

Many people argued that there should be a comma before "armed" in C. However, there should be a "and" not a comma.

If comma: In 1905 Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly began their pioneering work in ethnomusicology, traveling the back roads of Hungary, armed only with an Edison phonograph and insatiable curiosity.

then we would have a similar mistake as in E. There should be "and" in front of "armed" to show the parallelism between "traveling" (present participle) and "armed" (past participle) (yes, they are parallel).


However, "and" is not necessary!!

For example: Alfred the Great acted as his own spy, visiting Danish camps disguised as a minstrel.

Here, we don't have anything connecting "visiting" and "disguised" but this sentence is still correct.


The takeaway from this is that, sometimes, we can ignore "and" as the above examples.
_________________

I really doubt about C being the correct answer.

emcheeks said it right that there should be and before "armed". But this also will not follow modifier rule and modify anything.

MOreover armed is suppose to modify "Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly " and not the road. So keeping this into consideration I don't see any issue with A.
I agree position of "in 1905" is not preferable in A but that out of all options A is best choice.

Experts, please confirm whether an 'and' should be present before 'armed' so that 'armed' shouldn't seem to modify 'Hungary'.
_________________

Hello, sssanskaar. There is no need for and to appear before armed: the context of the sentence allows us to appreciate that Hungary cannot be armed with a phonograph and curiosity. Similarly, if I were to write the sentence,

The robbers fled the bank armed with semiautomatic pistols

there is no confusion over whether the robbers or the bank may be the armed party—a bank cannot be armed with pistols, even if guards within that bank can be. I could not, however, write a somewhat similar sentence in which I intended to convey that the robbers made off while being protected, since the meaning would then be unclear:

The robbers fled the bank protected under armed guard.

Now, it is unclear whether the robbers or the bank should be paired with the modifier, since either one could be protected under armed guard. The sentence should be rewritten to convey a clearer message.

I tell people all the time to practice applying a meaning-based approach to SC. Grammar can take you quite far, but to reach the next level of mastery, you often have to rely on knowledge that may bend the so-called rules.

I hope that helps with your query. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Hello,
In C, doesn't "armed" seem to modify Hungary? VeritasKarishma, egmat, GMATNinja

I would really appreciate it if someone can explain why is that in Option C, the modifier “travelling the roads…” is able to modify “Bela and Zoltan”, instead of “ethnomusicology” or “their pioneering work”?

(C) In 1905 Bela Bartok and Zoltan Kodaly began their pioneering work in ethnomusicology, traveling the back roads of Hungary armed only with an Edison phonograph and insatiable curiosity.


Here is another question, which I think is about modifiers:

The attorney turned down the law firm’s offer of a position because she suspected that it was meant merely to fill an affirmative action quota with no commitment to minority hiring and eventually promoting.

(A) quota with no commitment to minority hiring and eventually promoting

(B) quota, having no commitment to minority hiring and eventually promoting

(C) quota and did not reflect a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion

(D) quota, not reflecting a commitment to minority hiring and eventual promotion

(E) quota, not one that reflected that minority hiring and eventual promotion was a commitment


In the question pasted above, I chose Option (C) (which is the official answer) as I felt that the preposition/modifiers in remaining answer choices modify “quota” instead of "offer".

Could someone share their insights on how these two questions are different, where first question allows “travelling the roads…” to modify “Bela and Zoltan”, while in the second question, for example answer choice B, “having no commitment” would be unable to modify “offer” in “the law firm’s offer”?



Update: For anyone with the same question. The explanation should be as follows:

Quote from TomATManhattanGMAT on "The Achaemenid empire of Persia reached the Indus Valley in the fifth" question:

These “comma –ing” structures are adverbial modifiers, which modify the preceding clause (subject and verb)

In the initial question, "Bela and Zoltan" are the subject of the sentence, while in the second question, "The attorney" is the subject of the sentence. As such “having no commitment” would modify the "The attorney" which is illogical.

Thank you! TomATManhattanGMAT