GMATPrep SC: It was only after Katharine Graham

[harika.apu]

are you sure that this is an official gmatprep question? while it's not wildly different from the official problems i've seen, it's not as "tight" (in terms of concision, diction, etc.) as most of those problems.

--

in any case, the main problem i see with choice (c) isn't a pronoun issue; rather, it's the participial modifier beginning with "having". if you write "...having won high praise under her command", the implication is that the paper had already won high praise by the time it moved into the highest echelon of american newspapers - an implication that is at odds with the intended meaning, and is absurd to boot (the watergate crisis was 10-11 years after the mentioned date of 1963).

--

there's really no pronoun issue with choice (a), because two of the "it"s are a special construction in which they don't really have single-word antecedents. for example if i write
it was surprising to me that you would say something like that,
this is proper english. if you want to get technical, you could say that the pronoun "it" stands for the entire noun clause "that you would say something like that", but it's easier just to think of this as a special construction.
in choice (a), "it was only after KG became..." and "it was under her command..." are both examples of this type of construction, so the remaining "it" is the only pronoun that really deserves serious consideration.

still, i agree with you that choice (a), while not strictly incorrect, suffers from sloppy writing.

Hi Ron ,
Just to make sure my understanding is correct
In one your posts , you have referred to adverb phrases and provided a link
http://flang1.kendall.mdc.edu/6/611/611 ... 11Lec2.htm
"event in Having phrase happen before event in the independent clause it is attached to "

does this rule apply here for Option C?
Thanks in advance.

[tim]

I'll give you the same response I gave you in another thread:

If there is a rule it applies to ALL choices in ALL problems, so it makes no sense to say effectively, "Hey Ron, I know you said this is a rule, but could you tell me whether it's a rule?"

[RonPurewal]

(:

[harika.apu]

I'll give you the same response I gave you in another thread:

If there is a rule it applies to ALL choices in ALL problems, so it makes no sense to say effectively, "Hey Ron, I know you said this is a rule, but could you tell me whether it's a rule?"

Thanks Tim

[RonPurewal]

yep. basically, we don't really want to keep confirming our own statements. if we write stuff on here, then, per our understanding, that stuff is right.
(:

on the other hand, if you find something that contradicts what we've written on here, then, yes, please post it.
thanks!

[NL]

If one person never say something that contradicts something else s/he said before, then that is a fictional person.

[RonPurewal]

...or someone who can't talk.
(:

[CrystalSpringston]

Is A the answer to this question? If so, what is wrong with E?

the initial modifier in (e) is constructed with a present participle, "moving..."
if that's the case, then that implies that "moving" is contemporaneous with the main clause. it isn't, though; the modifier takes place distinctly before the action of the main clause.

Hi Ron, but how do we know "moving" takes place before the action of main clause(won the praise)?
According to the correct sentence A, the two actions are just in parallel. And there is no time mark .

[tim]

I don't know that it's relevant to consider the timing here. Even if we accept that the two things (moving and wining high praise) happened at the same time, E just sets up a cause and effect that makes no sense.

[RonPurewal]

tim ^^ has already said what's most important-- there's no need to go into such minute detail.
(this should always be true on SC. if you feel the need to nit-pick something, then you're missing a much bigger issue somewhere else.)

in any case, the narrative arc of the sentence is clear:
• this woman took charge of the newspaper,
• soon thereafter, the paper achieved top-notch status;
• (later,) as this woman was running the show, the paper won awards for its coverage of watergate.

[RonPurewal]

--

full disclosure:
like most other educated people my age, i know when the watergate scandal happened (mid-1970's).
even if i didn't know when watergate happened, i **THINK** the narrative arc of the sentence would still be clear... but, of course, i can't temporarily erase that knowledge from my head in order to find out.

in any case, the most important point is 'if you have to dive this deep, think about something else'!

[puntkub]

Hi ,Instructor,

In E,

E) Moving into the first rank of American newspapers only after Katharine Grahame's becoming its publisher in 1963, The Washington Post won high praise under her command

can her command refers back to Katharine Grahame's

thank you in advance

[RonPurewal]

there's no problem with that (although that option is wrong for other reasons).

[NicoleT643]

Hi Ron, could you please advice whether the usage of KG's becoming is correct in B and E?

I remember the sentence: People laugh at my walking into girl's bathroom. Here "my walking" is correct because this is the reason that people laugh about. But I am not sure the usage of KG's becoming is right or not, please advice, thank you.

[RonPurewal]

that construction is ... not wrong, although it's very weird.

if you see a competing answer choice with a more normal phrasing (like "after she became..."), then you should take that one instead.