sc

[eggpain24]

In 1945, after a career as First Lady in which she shattered expectations more audaciously than either Abigail Adams or Dolly Madison ever had been, Eleanor Roosevelt was appointed a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly by President Harry S Truman.

(A) more audaciously than either Abigail Adams or Dolly Madison ever had been, Eleanor Roosevelt was appointed a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly by President Harry S Truman
(B) more audaciously than either Abigail Adams or Dolly Madison, President Harry S Truman had Eleanor Roosevelt appointed to be a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly
(C) with an audacity never matched in the case of Abigail Adams or Dolly Madison, President Harry S Truman had Eleanor Roosevelt appointed as a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly
(D) with an audacity never matched by Abigail Adams or Dolly Madison, Eleanor Roosevelt was appointed a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly by President Harry S Truman
(E) with an audacity never matched either in the case of Abigail Adams or of Dolly Madison's, Eleanor Roosevelt was appointed to be a delegate to the United Nations General Assembly by President Harry S Truman

Would you please advice in D, "was appointed a delegate" correct? I thought it should say" was appointed as a delegate"

I agree that D is best.
however, I do not understand the phrase

"audacity matched by person A and person B"

we should say

"audacity atuched by that (audacity) of person A and person B"

pls, explain

huh. I got a same doubt here

[RonPurewal]

Let's say we're bidding at an auction.

You make an offer.

Next, I can match your offer. This is what I am actively doing: matching your offer.

(You can also write "I made an offer that matched yours", but that's somewhat more wordy/awkward. It also downplays the active behavior on my part.)

[RonPurewal]

Also—more importantly—there's no choice that says "that of ..." here anyway. So this is a non-issue.

[gmatkiller_24]

how can “had been” in choice A be construed？It doesnt refer to any previous parallelism

and it seems to be that had been conveyed a passive voice meaning if I understand “had been” as “had been shattered” （people cannot be shattered）

is that thinking reasonable？Please clarify， thanks！

[gmatkiller_24]

Hi, Ron:

in choice B

she shattered expectations more audaciously than either Abigail Adams or Dolly Madison (shattered)

can the shattered in the latter half be omitted？

OR

we can rule out B just for this bad parallelism？

Thank you

[RonPurewal]

you don't generally include both verbs unless (1) they're different, or (2) the sentence is ambiguous without the second verb.

i doubt that anyone needs to see examples for #1.

#2: e.g.,
Sarah has played hockey for longer than Tom. (unambiguous -- perfectly fine)
but...
Sarah has known Marilyn for longer than Tom. (ambiguous)
could mean... Sarah has known Marilyn for longer than Tom has.
or... Sarah has known Marilyn for longer than she has known Tom.
in this case a second verb is required for the sake of clarity.

the "shattered" sentence has only one possible meaning, so there's no need to repeat "shattered".

[gmatkiller_24]

you don't generally include both verbs unless (1) they're different, or (2) the sentence is ambiguous without the second verb.

i doubt that anyone needs to see examples for #1.

#2: e.g.,
Sarah has played hockey for longer than Tom. (unambiguous -- perfectly fine)
but...
Sarah has known Marilyn for longer than Tom. (ambiguous)
could mean... Sarah has known Marilyn for longer than Tom has.
or... Sarah has known Marilyn for longer than she has known Tom.
in this case a second verb is required for the sake of clarity.

the "shattered" sentence has only one possible meaning, so there's no need to repeat "shattered".

got it !

thanks

[RonPurewal]

sure.

[HM537]

is there anything wrong with "in the case of"? i don't know what case refers to in the sentence. how to use "in the case of"?

[RonPurewal]

is there anything wrong with "in the case of"? i don't know what case refers to in the sentence. how to use "in the case of"?

here, the best course of action is to ignore it completely.

in the two choices where it appears, it's there only to distract you from much more straightforward issues.
among other things,
• E has blatant non-parallelism, with 's after one name but not the other,
• 'after a career as first lady' clearly must be followed by the first lady's name, but in C the sentence has Truman as the subject instead.

[RonPurewal]

i did write some stuff about that construction here...
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p116191

...but, again, you should ALWAYS look for more fundamental / more straightforward issues FIRST.

[LipsiK777]

Hi Ron,

I read all the posts but unable to rule out exact possibilities why B was wrong. Need your help sorry if this is redundant.

Thanks in advance

[RonPurewal]

most obviously, the sentence starts with
"after a career as First Lady in which..."

that's a modifier that clearly describes eleanor roosevelt, not harry s truman.

so, if you have a choice between starting the following sentence with "eleanor roosevelt" and starting it with "harry s truman", then you can immediately eliminate the choices starting with "harry s truman".

[NehaM981]

HI

How can audacity be compared with a person ??

Please explain ..

Thanks
Neha

[RonPurewal]

when you process comparison sentences, you will often have to use common sense to determine the left-hand part of the comparison.

for instance, both of the following are correct sentences:

Tom has played hockey for longer than football.

Tom has played hockey for longer than Joe.

the first one is hockey vs. football; the second is Tom vs. Joe.
both of these are completely obvious in context, but, you just have to realize that there's a certain amount of flexibility. (the part AFTER "than" is not nearly so flexible.)

same thing with this sentence.