sc

[laurenplus]

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"

[StaceyKoprince]

Please follow protocol: your subject should be the first 5 to 8 words of the problem. Thanks.

Nope - we appoint someone something. We don't appoint someone as something.

She was appointed president.
He was appointed chief dog-catcher.
etc.

[glory]

[quote="skoprince"]Please follow protocol: your subject should be the first 5 to 8 words of the problem. Thanks.

Nope - we appoint someone something. We don't appoint someone as something.

She was appointed president.
He was appointed chief dog-catcher.
etc.[/quote)

Hi stacey, here in this question, I think the answer is D. Can you tell me why A is wrong and why D is right.

I think that comparison in A is wrong; the statement on both sides of " more audiaciously than" are not structurally parallel although they are logical parallel.

However in C the adverb phrase : with the audacity ..." clearly express the intended meaning.

Please suggest.

[RonPurewal]

Please follow protocol: your subject should be the first 5 to 8 words of the problem. Thanks.

Nope - we appoint someone something. We don't appoint someone as something.

She was appointed president.
He was appointed chief dog-catcher.
etc.[/quote)

Hi stacey, here in this question, I think the answer is D. Can you tell me why A is wrong and why D is right.

I think that comparison in A is wrong; the statement on both sides of " more audiaciously than" are not structurally parallel although they are logical parallel.

However in C the adverb phrase : with the audacity ..." clearly express the intended meaning.

Please suggest.

well, you've answered your own question about choice a: the parallelism is horrible. there is nothing whatsoever to which 'had been' can be parallel.

choice c: i suppose the adverb phrase is ok, but 'in the case of' is definitely inferior to 'by' (as in the correct answer choice d).
not only does 'in the case of' not express the meaning as clearly, but it's also needlessly wordy.

in any case, it seems that you already understand why choice a is wrong. any other questions?

--

also, i'm pleased that there's no period after 's' in harry s truman; after all, his full middle name was 's'.

[soundok]

If I corret the choice A to be

(A) more audaciously than either Abigail Adams or Dolly Madison ever "DID" or "HAD"

Is it corret?

[RonPurewal]

If I corret the choice A to be

(A) more audaciously than either Abigail Adams or Dolly Madison ever "DID" or "HAD"

Is it corret?

i would think so.

[peter_griffin]

While i do think choice A sounds wrong (purely guessing) can someone explain to me what exactly is the issue with a , particularly the first clause.

(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

Something looks fishy around "ever had been"

Thanks in advance

[RonPurewal]

While i do think choice A sounds wrong (purely guessing) can someone explain to me what exactly is the issue with a , particularly the first clause.

there's nothing to which "had been" can refer / be parallel, so that helping verb is meaningless.

[cshen02]

Hi there,
I don't quite get the meaning of this sentence, especially the opening.

after a career as First Lady in which she shattered expectations

I read it as She outperformed public expectation of First Lady. Right?
"which" refers to "a career as First Lady", but what does "in" do here? does it belong to expectation in?

[RonPurewal]

Hi there,
I don't quite get the meaning of this sentence, especially the opening.

after a career as First Lady in which she shattered expectations

I read it as She outperformed public expectation of First Lady. Right?
"which" refers to "a career as First Lady", but what does "in" do here? does it belong to expectation in?

It's best to illustrate by example:

I shop at this grocery store --> the grocery store at which I shop

I spoke with this person --> the person with whom I spoke

She shattered expectations in this career --> a career in which she shattered expectations

[RonPurewal]

In other words, you should think of "in which" (and "with whom" and "at which") as a unit that begins a modifier, much like "which" itself.

[cshen02]

In other words, you should think of "in which" (and "with whom" and "at which") as a unit that begins a modifier, much like "which" itself.

Prompt reply indeed! Thanks Ron :)

[jnelson0612]

In other words, you should think of "in which" (and "with whom" and "at which") as a unit that begins a modifier, much like "which" itself.

Prompt reply indeed! Thanks Ron :)

:-)

[lindaliu9273]

While i do think choice A sounds wrong (purely guessing) can someone explain to me what exactly is the issue with a , particularly the first clause.

there's nothing to which "had been" can refer / be parallel, so that helping verb is meaningless.

Hi Ron,

in A, Is "more" correctly placed? Or should it be placed before "expectations"?

I mess up here.

Thank you.

[thanghnvn]

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