Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the

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.

"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.

No. In (C), "in 1909" appropriately modifies "she became."

Hi samgyupsal,

I'd hesitate to say that such a construction can never be correct, but it is certainly a sign that the option is unlikely to be correct.

Normally, I'd say that it could lead to ambiguity, but in option A there is no comma after in 1909 (such commas are usually optional in extremely short phrases like this one), which helps us understand that in 1909 is meant to modify something in the second half of the sentence.

1. Turning away from X, in 1909, she did something. ← This seems to be more ambiguous (did she turn away in 1909 or did she do something in 1909?)
2. Turning away from X, in 1909 she did something. ← This seems to be less ambiguous than (1)

D is still clearer than A though. In 1909 is close to became, which makes sense. Option A leads to "in 1909 she was the novelist who became..." and this doesn't convey the intended meaning well. Also, the inclusion of was the novelist who is awkward ("in 1909 she became the first..." would be better).

Vatsal7794

The difference is that the verb (turned) is contained in a modifier (WHO turned). So you can think of it as a simple appositive modifier (A novelist) with a long modifier attached to the noun (who turned . . . ). If we didn't have WHO, it would be "A novelist turned away from literary realism . . . ," and that would be a clause.

There are some meaning issues in the (A) version. The clearest one is in this part of the sentence.

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.

Notice that the boldfaced portion communicates that Selma Lagerlöf "became the first woman," as if she somehow became the first woman to exist. Of course, this meaning is nonsensical since Selma Lagerlöf was a novelist in 1909, long after the first woman existed.

Part of the reason why this version conveys that nonsensical meaning is that it uses the wording "who became the first woman AND was also the first to win ...."

We see that the sentence does not convey that Selma Lagerlöf "became the first woman to win."

Rather, it separates the idea that she "became the first woman" from the idea that she "was the first to win," using "and" to connect the two events in list form. It thus communicates that she did two separate things, "became the the first woman" and "was the first to win."

Notice how (C) splits the sentence into two independent clauses, and that kinda makes it feel like those two parts are separate and unrelated: (

1) Selma was a novelist, and
(2) Selma won the prize... maybe for writing poetry or something?

(D) does a better job of tying those two parts together, and that's one vote against (C).

The next problem with (C) is the phrase "in addition to". At first glance, this makes it sound as though Selma AND some other writer won the prize. Again, not a concrete error, but another small vote against (C).

And yes, "winning" is a problem. It seems to be modifying "in 1909 she became the first woman" -- as if she was WINNING the prize WHEN she became the first woman?

And if "winning" modifies "woman" (or "writer"), what does it mean to become a woman/writer winning the prize? Does that mean that after 1909 she was perpetually winning the prize? That sounds kinda fun, but also illogical.

There aren't really any concrete rules we can rely on here, but "winning" seals (C)'s fate, and (D) is a much better option.

_____________________
What do u think about E

Sent from my Redmi 4A using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Hello yogeshmisthi,

I will be glad to help you out with this one.

The comma + verb-ing modifier becoming... in Choice E seems to present the result of the preceding action wrote romantic stories. The choice seems to suggest that because SL wrote romantic stories, she won the mentioned accolades. This meaning does not make sense.

And yes, we cannot use the noun modifier that to refer to human beings. So usage of that is also incorrect in Choice E.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

mikemcgarry: Dear Mike, How are you? Just had a question on this, so please see below. I have modified option E to understand if there are any other relevant problems in the sentence:

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 who won the Nobel Price for Literature- I replaced "that" with "who" here to remove the obvious error. In this sentence, are we still losing the crux that she was the first woman to do something OR is the construction She was the first woman who did X equally correct in conveying a particular sense of meaning. Are there any other existing errors sill in the sentence?

FOR EXAMPLE
A)Harsh was the first person to climb Mount Everest
B)Harsh was the first person who climbed Mount Everest

Is there any difference in the meaning conveyed by the 2 sentences above( This is the exact concern I am trying to raise in the setence above). Many Thanks

Please could you kindly explain why option C is incorrect.
Thanks.
(source gmatprep exam 2)

Hi Experts,

Though I got the answer correct I have a quick doubt regarding use of infinitive.
The original sentence says that "Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories about the peasant life and landscape of northern Sweden"

Will it be correct to rephrase the above sentence as "Turning away from literary realism to writing romantic stories about the peasant life and landscape of northern Sweden"

Just a silly doubt but it will clear my concepts about the use of infinitive.

Thanks in advance

An adverb (or adverbial phrase as in this case) can be positioned at the front, at the end or in the middle of a sentence. In option D the adverbial phrase "in 1909" takes the mid-position. (Though it is more common for an adverb/adverbial phrase of time to take the end or the front position, it is seen in this example that GMAT accepts the mid position as well.)

Meaning issue - In C the meaning implied may be that the first Swedish writer and Selma Lagerlöf are two different people.

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.

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




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

Hi Carolyn MagooshExpert , AjiteshArun - Thanks for your help.

I believe you missed my second question --





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?