Last visit was: 17 Jul 2024, 07:15 It is currently 17 Jul 2024, 07:15
Toolkit
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

# Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Director
Joined: 09 Aug 2017
Posts: 686
Own Kudos [?]: 426 [1]
Given Kudos: 778
SVP
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2402
Own Kudos [?]: 15324 [0]
Given Kudos: 26
Location: Germany
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE:Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
SVP
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2402
Own Kudos [?]: 15324 [1]
Given Kudos: 26
Location: Germany
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE:Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
SVP
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2402
Own Kudos [?]: 15324 [0]
Given Kudos: 26
Location: Germany
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE:Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
reynaldreni wrote:
Please could you kindly explain why option C is incorrect.
Thanks.
(source gmatprep exam 2)

Meaning issue - In C the meaning implied may be that the first Swedish writer and Selma Lagerlöf are two different people.
Intern
Joined: 03 Dec 2015
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [0]
Given Kudos: 6
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
Hi Experts,
In SC, I have been following a rule that the pair "and' - "also" is redundant.
However, it seems to be incorrect after getting this question wrong.
Can someone please provide pertaining details of and-also.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Posts: 2093
Own Kudos [?]: 8981 [3]
Given Kudos: 171
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
nikhilbhide wrote:
Hi Experts,
In SC, I have been following a rule that the pair "and' - "also" is redundant.
However, it seems to be incorrect after getting this question wrong.
Can someone please provide pertaining details of and-also.

Hi nikhilbhide ,

"X and Y" is normally used to indicate two different things. (if you said "the first woman and the first Swedish writer", without the "also", that would normally imply 2 different people)

"X and also Y" is normally used to bestow two descriptions on the SAME person or thing (notice that both of these descriptions are meant to describe Selma Lagerlof).

Retired Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Posts: 2093
Own Kudos [?]: 8981 [0]
Given Kudos: 171
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the peasant life and landscape of northern Sweden, in 1909 Selma Lagerlöf was the novelist who became the first woman and was also the first Swedish writer to win the Nobel Prize for Literature.

(A) Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the peasant life and landscape of northern Sweden, in 1909 Selma Lagerlöf was the novelist who became the first woman and was also the first Swedish writer to win -- modifier error -- in 1909 after comma

(B) She turned away from literary realism and wrote romantic stories about the peasant life and landscape of northern Sweden, and novelist Selma Lagerlöf in 1909 became the first woman as well as the first Swedish writer that won -- usage of AND changes meaning because the two things -- she turned away ... and she became the first woman are not independent ; usage of that to refer to writer (a person )

(C) Selma Lagerlöf was a novelist who turned away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the peasant life and landscape of northern Sweden, and in 1909 she became the first woman in addition to the first Swedish writer winning -- what was she before she became the first women ; usage of in addition

(D) A novelist who turned away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the peasant life and landscape of northern Sweden, Selma Lagerlöf became in 1909 the first woman and also the first Swedish writer to win -- Correct

(E) As a novelist, Selma Lagerlöf turned away from literary realism and wrote romantic stories about the peasant life and landscape of northern Sweden, in 1909 becoming the first woman and also the first Swedish writer that won -- usage of that to refer to writer is incorrect

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

1.In option B , does She not refer to Selma Lagerlöf by virtue of parallelism(both are subjects) ?
She turned away from literary realism and wrote romantic stories about the peasant life and landscape of northern Sweden, and novelist Selma Lagerlöf in 1909 became the first woman as well as the first Swedish writer that won

whereas in question in the link - https://gmatclub.com/forum/she-was-an-e ... s#p2041716

She was an educator, a builder of institutions and organizations, and a major figure in the Black church and secular feminist movements as well, so one of the best-known and most well-respected African Americans of the early twentieth century was Nannie Helen Burroughs.

She is the subject of the independent clause , but Nannie Helen Burroughs is an object of second independent clause . So , as per parallelism , she CANNOT refer to NHB ?

2. Also , if the subject of both the independent clauses is the same , i believe repetition of subject(pronoun) leads to redundancy and thus should be avoided ?

https://gmatclub.com/forum/joan-of-arc- ... l#p1104716

daagh wrote:
An important thumb rule to follow while handling compound sentences is the omission of the subject in the second IC, if the subject of first IC can fit in as well as the subject. Here the subject of both the ICs is Joan and hence you can drop the pronoun – she - in the second IC. The whole sentence will still be //. Secondly, the right idiom is to claim. Both these combinations, you find in choice D only

AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , mikemcgarry , egmat , sayantanc2k, RonPurewal , DmitryFarber , MagooshExpert -- please enlighten
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 231
Own Kudos [?]: 407 [1]
Given Kudos: 20
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Skywalker18 wrote:

Hi Skywalker18!

Happy to help

Skywalker18 wrote:
1.In option B , does She not refer to Selma Lagerlöf by virtue of parallelism(both are subjects) ?
She turned away from literary realism and wrote romantic stories about the peasant life and landscape of northern Sweden, and novelist Selma Lagerlöf in 1909 became the first woman as well as the first Swedish writer that won

whereas in question in the link - https://gmatclub.com/forum/she-was-an-e ... s#p2041716

She was an educator, a builder of institutions and organizations, and a major figure in the Black church and secular feminist movements as well, so one of the best-known and most well-respected African Americans of the early twentieth century was Nannie Helen Burroughs.

She is the subject of the independent clause , but Nannie Helen Burroughs is an object of second independent clause . So , as per parallelism , she CANNOT refer to NHB ?

Unfortunately, parallelism doesn't work this way. The pronoun "she" is referenced before we know what it's referring to. Parallelism is irrelevant here -- the problem is that we don't know what "she" refers to. Just because they are both subjects does not mean that they are referring to the same thing. We could say "apples are red and grapes are green", and both clauses are in parallel, but that doesn't mean that apples = grapes. Similarly, if we say "they are red and grapes are green", it's totally unclear what we're talking about. Does "they" refer to "grapes" or something else, like "apples"? That's the problem here.

Skywalker18 wrote:
2. Also , if the subject of both the independent clauses is the same , i believe repetition of subject(pronoun) leads to redundancy and thus should be avoided ?

https://gmatclub.com/forum/joan-of-arc- ... l#p1104716

daagh wrote:
An important thumb rule to follow while handling compound sentences is the omission of the subject in the second IC, if the subject of first IC can fit in as well as the subject. Here the subject of both the ICs is Joan and hence you can drop the pronoun – she - in the second IC. The whole sentence will still be //. Secondly, the right idiom is to claim. Both these combinations, you find in choice D only

I've highlighted the key part here. It is correct to remove the repeated subject and replace it with a pronoun, but only in the SECOND clause (i.e., after the noun has already been mentioned). For example, say we have:

Apples are red and apples grow in Washington state.

In this case, the correct modification would be:

Apples are red and they grow in Washington state.

But it is INCORRECT to say:

They are red and apples grow in Washington state.

We can only switch to the pronoun AFTER the subject (apples) has been mentioned. We can't substitute the pronoun into the first independent clause.

Does that help clear things up here? If not, let me know
-Carolyn
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5315
Own Kudos [?]: 4732 [2]
Given Kudos: 660
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
2
Kudos

Skywalker18 wrote:
1.In option B , does She not refer to Selma Lagerlöf by virtue of parallelism(both are subjects) ?
This (pronoun reference through parallelism) is not really a "rule". Think of it as a "signal" (to the reader). Sometimes the parallelism helps your reader understand what you are trying to refer to. Sometimes it doesn't. For example:

It may not be the healthiest food, but chocolate remains part of his diet.

Here it is reasonably easy to understand that the it refers to chocolate.

In these situations, check whether there is a better option. Don't try to start solving a question by looking at pronoun ambiguity issues (ambiguity should be kept for later, after the more "sure" concepts).
Retired Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Posts: 2093
Own Kudos [?]: 8981 [0]
Given Kudos: 171
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
MagooshExpert wrote:
Skywalker18 wrote:

Hi Skywalker18!

Happy to help

Skywalker18 wrote:
1.In option B , does She not refer to Selma Lagerlöf by virtue of parallelism(both are subjects) ?
She turned away from literary realism and wrote romantic stories about the peasant life and landscape of northern Sweden, and novelist Selma Lagerlöf in 1909 became the first woman as well as the first Swedish writer that won

whereas in question in the link - https://gmatclub.com/forum/she-was-an-e ... s#p2041716

She was an educator, a builder of institutions and organizations, and a major figure in the Black church and secular feminist movements as well, so one of the best-known and most well-respected African Americans of the early twentieth century was Nannie Helen Burroughs.

She is the subject of the independent clause , but Nannie Helen Burroughs is an object of second independent clause . So , as per parallelism , she CANNOT refer to NHB ?

Unfortunately, parallelism doesn't work this way. The pronoun "she" is referenced before we know what it's referring to. Parallelism is irrelevant here -- the problem is that we don't know what "she" refers to. Just because they are both subjects does not mean that they are referring to the same thing. We could say "apples are red and grapes are green", and both clauses are in parallel, but that doesn't mean that apples = grapes. Similarly, if we say "they are red and grapes are green", it's totally unclear what we're talking about. Does "they" refer to "grapes" or something else, like "apples"? That's the problem here.

Skywalker18 wrote:
2. Also , if the subject of both the independent clauses is the same , i believe repetition of subject(pronoun) leads to redundancy and thus should be avoided ?

https://gmatclub.com/forum/joan-of-arc- ... l#p1104716

daagh wrote:
An important thumb rule to follow while handling compound sentences is the omission of the subject in the second IC, if the subject of first IC can fit in as well as the subject. Here the subject of both the ICs is Joan and hence you can drop the pronoun – she - in the second IC. The whole sentence will still be //. Secondly, the right idiom is to claim. Both these combinations, you find in choice D only

I've highlighted the key part here. It is correct to remove the repeated subject and replace it with a pronoun, but only in the SECOND clause (i.e., after the noun has already been mentioned). For example, say we have:

Apples are red and apples grow in Washington state.

In this case, the correct modification would be:

Apples are red and they grow in Washington state.

But it is INCORRECT to say:

They are red and apples grow in Washington state.

We can only switch to the pronoun AFTER the subject (apples) has been mentioned. We can't substitute the pronoun into the first independent clause.

Does that help clear things up here? If not, let me know
-Carolyn

Hi Carolyn MagooshExpert , AjiteshArun - Thanks for your help.

I believe you missed my second question --

Skywalker18 wrote:
2. Also , if the subject of both the independent clauses is the same , i believe repetition of subject(pronoun) leads to redundancy and thus should be avoided ?

https://gmatclub.com/forum/joan-of-arc- ... l#p1104716

daagh wrote:
An important thumb rule to follow while handling compound sentences is the omission of the subject in the second IC, if the subject of first IC can fit in as well as the subject. Here the subject of both the ICs is Joan and hence you can drop the pronoun – she - in the second IC. The whole sentence will still be //. Secondly, the right idiom is to claim. Both these combinations, you find in choice D only

Joan of Arc, a young Frenchwoman who claimed to be divinely inspired, turned the tide of English victories in her country by liberating the city of Orleans and she persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne.

(D) persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne
The only difference between option A and D is the pronoun "She".

What i can infer is as per GMAT , repetition of the pronoun is redundant. Can we use this fact as a rule or only as a preference?
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4415
Own Kudos [?]: 31302 [0]
Given Kudos: 641
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
Skywalker18 wrote:

Joan of Arc, a young Frenchwoman who claimed to be divinely inspired, turned the tide of English victories in her country by liberating the city of Orleans and she persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne.

(D) persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne
The only difference between option A and D is the pronoun "She".

What i can infer is as per GMAT , repetition of the pronoun is redundant. Can we use this fact as a rule or only as a preference?

Hello Skywalker18,

Here is my response to few of your questions.

Skywalker18 wrote:

Joan of Arc, a young Frenchwoman who claimed to be divinely inspired, turned the tide of English victories in her country by liberating the city of Orleans and she persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne.

(D) persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne
The only difference between option A and D is the pronoun "She".

It is not so that repeating pronoun leads to redundancy in this sentence. There are two aspects to this usage.

1. If the sentence intends to present two actions performed by the same doer, then why to write the two actions in two different clauses. The concise manner to present that sentence is to mention the doer once and present the two actions in a parallel list. This is what Choice D does.

2. Two independent clauses cannot be connected just by and. This is the flaw the original sentence suffers from.

If a comma is added before and in the original sentence, then it will be a correct sentence.

Now in this sentence, there is no confusion as to what the pronoun she refers to because Joan of Arc is mentioned right in the beginning of the sentence, and there is no other female mentioned in the sentence that she can refer to.

However, in the Selma Lagerlof problem, Choice B seems to suggest that its talking about two different people because two actions by the same doer has been presented in two different clauses, and first the pronoun is mentioned and then Selma Lagerlof is mentioned in the sentence.

So we come back to the same point. If the sentence intends to present two actions performed by the same doer, then why to write the two actions in two different clauses. The concise manner to present that sentence is to mention the doer once and present the two actions in a parallel list.

The correct answer choice of this question presents a structure that incorporates all the information about Selma Lagerlof in an unambiguous manner. This is the characteristic of a correct answer choice. It should present information in clear and simple manner.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Posts: 2093
Own Kudos [?]: 8981 [0]
Given Kudos: 171
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
AjiteshArun wrote:

Skywalker18 wrote:
1.In option B , does She not refer to Selma Lagerlöf by virtue of parallelism(both are subjects) ?
This (pronoun reference through parallelism) is not really a "rule". Think of it as a "signal" (to the reader). Sometimes the parallelism helps your reader understand what you are trying to refer to. Sometimes it doesn't. For example:

It may not be the healthiest food, but chocolate remains part of his diet.

Here it is reasonably easy to understand that the it refers to chocolate.

In these situations, check whether there is a better option. Don't try to start solving a question by looking at pronoun ambiguity issues (ambiguity should be kept for later, after the more "sure" concepts).

AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , mikemcgarry , egmat , sayantanc2k, RonPurewal , DmitryFarber , MagooshExpert -- please enlighten

It may not be the healthiest food, but chocolate remains part of his diet. -- in this case the pronoun IT comes before the noun chocolate . So , is there a rule that Pronoun CANNOT come before the noun(to which the pronoun refers) in the sentence ?

MagooshExpert wrote:

Apples are red and they grow in Washington state.

But it is INCORRECT to say:

They are red and apples grow in Washington state.

We can only switch to the pronoun AFTER the subject (apples) has been mentioned. We can't substitute the pronoun into the first independent clause.

Does that help clear things up here? If not, let me know
-Carolyn
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5315
Own Kudos [?]: 4732 [2]
Given Kudos: 660
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Skywalker18 wrote:
It may not be the healthiest food, but chocolate remains part of his diet. -- in this case the pronoun IT comes before the noun chocolate . So , is there a rule that Pronoun CANNOT come before the noun(to which the pronoun refers) in the sentence ?
No. It depends on the construction. For example, if we change my sentence to

(1) It may not be the healthiest food, and chocolate is hard to resist.
Here the reader cannot be expected to understand that the it is referring to chocolate. There is just no clear connection between the first clause and the second.

(2) It may not be the healthiest food, but chocolate remains part of his diet.
Note how we switched from and to but. Now, the reader can be expected to understand that the it refers to chocolate.

Two more sentences:
(3) Ajay arrived before time and he drove me home.
Here the he can be understood to be referring to Ajay.

(4) He arrived before time and Ajay drove me home.
Here the he is referring to someone not mentioned in the sentence.

Clearly, the "rules" that (a) a pronoun and noun will "match" as long as they are in the subject position of their respective clauses and (b) a pronoun can never come before the noun it refers to are not really rules that can be applied cleanly.

Again, I'll repeat what I said earlier: In these situations, check whether there is a better option. Don't try to start solving a question by looking at pronoun ambiguity issues (ambiguity should be kept for later, after the more "sure" concepts).
Intern
Joined: 22 Sep 2018
Posts: 47
Own Kudos [?]: 47 [0]
Given Kudos: 44
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 5315
Own Kudos [?]: 4732 [1]
Given Kudos: 660
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1:
715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Leonaann wrote:
An also after and is used for emphasis. It does add redundancy, but the thing to remember here is that the presence of redundancy in an option does not mean that the option has no chance of being correct. We should check for other ("bigger") errors before looking to take an option out for redundancy.
Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 365
Own Kudos [?]: 43 [0]
Given Kudos: 529
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
Can we eliminate (C) with the help of parallelism "in"?
Intern
Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Posts: 35
Own Kudos [?]: 12 [0]
Given Kudos: 40
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 3.6
WE:Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
I'm not sure I understand how this is parallel.

(D) A novelist who turned away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the peasant life and landscape of northern Sweden, Selma Lagerlöf became in 1909 the first woman and also the first Swedish writer to win

How is it parallel? Doesn't this mean that in 1909 she became:

1) the first woman (doesn't make sense since there were women who existed before her)
2) the first Swedish writer to win the Nobel Prize for literature

How can we be sure that the infinitive phrase "to win" applies to both nouns (the first woman AND the first Swedish writer)?
Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 365
Own Kudos [?]: 43 [1]
Given Kudos: 529
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
1
Kudos
sd1713 wrote:
I'm not sure I understand how this is parallel.

(D) A novelist who turned away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the peasant life and landscape of northern Sweden, Selma Lagerlöf became in 1909 the first woman and also the first Swedish writer to win

How is it parallel? Doesn't this mean that in 1909 she became:

1) the first woman (doesn't make sense since there were women who existed before her)
2) the first Swedish writer to win the Nobel Prize for literature

How can we be sure that the infinitive phrase "to win" applies to both nouns (the first woman AND the first Swedish writer)?

"to win" can only refer back "Selma Lagerlof" because the start of the stem is "Selma lagerlof became in 1909".

Whenever you are trying parallelism try to find its stem.
So, read this sentence like this: Selma lagerlof became in 1909 (1)"the first woman" (makes sense)
Selma Lagerlöf became in 1909 (2)"also the first Swedish writer to win" (makes sense)

And the answer to your 1) the first woman (doesn't make sense since there were women who existed before her)
Its a bit of style to say. We really don't mean that she was the first woman, but somehow its just the style of the author at the end of the day. We have want to say that she was the first woman to "win" Nobel prize.
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3480
Own Kudos [?]: 5205 [1]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
1
Kudos
lakshya14 wrote:
Can we eliminate (C) with the help of parallelism "in"?

No. In (C), "in 1909" appropriately modifies "she became."
Current Student
Joined: 15 Jun 2020
Posts: 314
Own Kudos [?]: 81 [0]
Given Kudos: 245
Location: United States
GPA: 3.3
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
Hi experts, (MartyTargetTestPrep, GMATNinja, egmat, AjiteshArun)

For answer choice A, can you ever have a short prepositional phrase right after a modifier as this option has? (e.g., "Turning away form...,in 1909 SL was...") or is this ALWAYS incorrect?
Re: Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the [#permalink]
1   2   3   4
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6984 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts