V21-18

Question

The Federal Republic of Brazil achieved independence in 1822, became a republic in 1889, and consisted of 26 states and one federal district.

A. The Federal Republic of Brazil achieved independence in 1822, became a republic in 1889, and consisted of 26 states and one federal district.
B. The Federal Republic of Brazil, which achieved independence in 1822 and became a republic in 1889, consists of 26 states and one federal district.
C. Achieving independence in 1822 and becoming a republic in 1889, the Federal Republic of Brazil consists of 26 states and one federal district.
D. The Federal Republic of Brazil achieved independence in 1822, becoming a republic in 1889 and consisting of 26 states and one federal district.
E. The Federal Republic of Brazil, which achieved independence in 1822, becoming a republic in 1889 and consisting of 26 states and one federal district.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

The Federal Republic of Brazil achieved independence in 1822, became a republic in 1889, and consisted of 26 states and one federal district.

A. The Federal Republic of Brazil achieved independence in 1822, became a republic in 1889, and consisted of 26 states and one federal district.
B. The Federal Republic of Brazil, which achieved independence in 1822 and became a republic in 1889, consists of 26 states and one federal district.
C. Achieving independence in 1822 and becoming a republic in 1889, the Federal Republic of Brazil consists of 26 states and one federal district.
D. The Federal Republic of Brazil achieved independence in 1822, becoming a republic in 1889 and consisting of 26 states and one federal district.
E. The Federal Republic of Brazil, which achieved independence in 1822, becoming a republic in 1889 and consisting of 26 states and one federal district.

The parallelism sounds nice here: “…Brazil achieved independence, became a republic, and consisted of 26 states and one federal district.” But these three things happened at three different time periods, so it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to use three parallel, past-tense verbs – especially since Brazil still consists of 26 states and one federal district. (And a lot of amazing people – if you’ve never been to Brazil, I highly recommend it. One of my favorite countries.)
 
Anyway, (A) is out.

This seems better! The “which” modifier is placed correctly, and the stuff that happened in the 1800s is in the past tense – but “consists” is present. Keep (B)

On one hand, this isn’t completely awful. Superficially, the “-ing” modifiers “achieving” and “becoming” seem OK, since those are actions that were performed by Brazil. But I can’t understand why we would make “achieving” and “becoming” modifiers in this case. (B) makes much more sense: these should be verbs, since they’re not really modifying the phrase “Brazil consists of 26 states and one federal district.” (C) is gone.

(D) also warps the meaning a little bit. In this one, “becoming” and “consisting” are the modifiers, but I can’t understand why they would modify the phrase “Brazil achieved independence in 1822.” Those should be two separate actions, as in (B). Plus, the fact that Brazil currently consists of 26 states and one federal district is completely lost in (D), so we can safely eliminate it.

This isn’t even a sentence. We need an independent clause (with a subject and a verb), and we don’t have that here: the subject (Brazil) never actually performs any sort of action – we just have a bunch of modifiers. (E) is out, and (B) is the correct answer.

Answer: B

pranjal07121991 · Answer

Can you elaborate why D is not right ?

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

manasiT22 · Answer

Rewriting the option D below:
 D. The Federal Republic of Brazil achieved independence in 1822, becoming a republic in 1889 and consisting of 26 states and one federal district.

If you check the original sentence, it is talking about two events, one is Brazil achieving independence and other is Brazil becoming a republic. Both these events had occurred in the past. 'Becoming' is a present participle indicating that this event has just occurred or is occurring which defies what is given in the question.

Also the original sentence can be broken into two sentences:
1. The Federal Republic of Brazil which achieved independence in 1822 and became a republic in 1889.
2. The Federal Republic of Brazil consists of 26 states and one federal district.
This essence is lost completely in D.

YFXHEC · Answer

For choice D,

Can we interpret the 2 present participles, say "become" and "consist", as the result of "achieved independence" ? It could be sensical.

Also, per the original sentence, the use of simple past tense of "consist" probably implies that the action no longer sustains now. That's why I eliminate all the choice implying that Brazil still consists 26 states and one federal district.

Besides, after seeing the choice B and C, I eliminated both immediately. I assumed verbing-verb modifier when placed in front of the subject could only modify the subject rather than the whole phrase? SO I don't really see the difference between B and C.

Can anyone tell me why my analysis is implausible?

Thanks in advance.

PAVANKUMARR123 · Answer

Is not here the which modifier modifying only brazil instead of modifying ''Federal Republic of Brazil''..?

GMATNinja · Answer

The parallelism sounds nice here: “…Brazil achieved independence, became a republic, and consisted of 26 states and one federal district.” But these three things happened at three different time periods, so it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to use three parallel, past-tense verbs – especially since Brazil still consists of 26 states and one federal district. (And a lot of amazing people – if you’ve never been to Brazil, I highly recommend it. One of my favorite countries.)

Anyway, (A) is out.

This seems better! The “which” modifier is placed correctly, and the stuff that happened in the 1800s is in the past tense – but “consists” is present. Keep (B).

On one hand, this isn’t completely awful. Superficially, the  “-ing” modifiers  “achieving” and “becoming” seem OK, since those are actions that were performed by Brazil. But I can’t understand why we would make “achieving” and “becoming” modifiers in this case. (B) makes much more sense: these should be verbs, since they’re not really modifying the phrase “Brazil consists of 26 states and one federal district.” (C) is gone.

(D) also warps the meaning a little bit. In this one, “becoming” and “consisting” are the modifiers, but I can’t understand why they would modify the phrase “Brazil achieved independence in 1822.” Those should be two separate actions, as in (B). Plus, the fact that Brazil currently consists of 26 states and one federal district is completely lost in (D), so we can safely eliminate it.

This isn’t even a sentence. We need an independent clause (with a subject and a verb), and we don’t have that here: the subject (Brazil) never actually performs any sort of action – we just have a bunch of modifiers. (E) is out, and (B) is the correct answer.

kungfury42 · Answer

GMATNinja , I genuinely do not know if the Federal Republic of Brazil was an older name or the land is still called the same and not People's Democratic Republic of Brazil. Similarly, I genuinely do not know if the nation erstwhile consisted of 26 states and 1 federal district or it still consists of the same and not 52 states and 2 federal districts.

Being a common man with average worldly knowledge, for me Brazil is just Brazil, a Latin American paradise that churns out some of the greatest footballers. I have no idea about its (current) official name and geographic split-up across various states.

That makes it incredibly difficult for me to eliminate A because the third part of the sentence is grammatically correct, and might as well be factually correct (26 states and 1 FD being a thing of past)

With that I'm basically not able to arrive at any decision point that can help me pick between A and B. Could you please help?

Posted from my mobile device

GMATNinja · Answer

The test won't ever demand that you know random factoids. Imagine you had a construction like the following example:

Tim went to Paris in 2005, spent time in Italy in 2009, and had one daughter.

That last element of the parallel construction seems a little weird, doesn't it? We're given specific times for when the first two past-tense actions were performed, but not one for the last. That isn't inherently wrong, but it's really confusing. Did the author mean that the daughter was born in the past? If so, why not offer the year? Did the author mean that Tim no longer has a daughter? That seems like awfully important information to leave out.

But what about this one?

Tim, who went to Paris in 2005 and spent time in Italy in 2009, has one daughter.

If I saw this, I'd know exactly what's going on, even if I have no background info on Tim. He has one daughter today.

The choice between (A) and (B) is similar. In (A), the last past-tense action doesn't get a time stamp when the first two do, leaving me to wonder whether Brazil still consists of 26 states, and if it no longer does, why this wasn't mentioned. (B), on the other hand, makes it crystal clear that Brazil still consists of 26 states by using the present tense.

If (B) is clearer, it's better. No outside info required.

I hope that helps!

kungfury42 · Answer

Thanks a bunch for helping out  GMATNinja , your explanation is very easy to follow and understand the difference between options A and B.

V21-18

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards