Turning away from literary realism to write romantic stories

[krishnan.anju1987]

Great!!! Thanks for the clarification Joe :)

[tim]

:)

[liukech]

(1) Starting with -ING, or starting with preposition + -ING (especially in + -ING)

HI RON. i'm wondering why "preposition+-ING" here does not considered a prepositional modifier?
and what exactly is "prepositional phrase"?
Thank you in advance :)

[divineacclivity]

Let me try simplifying the sentence to help you understand it better:
A novelist who did something, Selma became in 1909 the first X and also the first Y.

Or, A novelist who did something, Selma became X in 1909.

Or, Robin, a doctor who participated in the WHO conference as a presenter of the new technology X, became in 1909 the president of the medical association.

[divineacclivity]

Ron, very good explanation as usual. Thank you very much.

[tim]

thanks. let us know if there are any further questions on this one..

[ikuta.yamahashi]

Sorry for reply the old thread.

I find a OG explanation for sc 38 D option:

The adverb also is redundant because it expresses the same meaning as the conjunction and.

it seems conflict with the explanation from Ron below:

"X and Y" is normally used to indicate two different things. (if you said "the first woman and the first Swedish writer", without the "also", that would normally imply 2 different people)
"X and also Y" is normally used to bestow two descriptions on the SAME person or thing (notice that both of these descriptions are meant to describe Selma Lagerlof).

Could some instructor help to confirm the OG explanation is not quite reasonable?

[jlucero]

Sorry for reply the old thread.

I find a OG explanation for sc 38 D option:

The adverb also is redundant because it expresses the same meaning as the conjunction and.

it seems conflict with the explanation from Ron below:

"X and Y" is normally used to indicate two different things. (if you said "the first woman and the first Swedish writer", without the "also", that would normally imply 2 different people)
"X and also Y" is normally used to bestow two descriptions on the SAME person or thing (notice that both of these descriptions are meant to describe Selma Lagerlof).

Could some instructor help to confirm the OG explanation is not quite reasonable?

SC 38 is more of a problem with placement than with wording. Consider:

OK: I admired him as a person and also as a teacher.
Wrong: I admired him as a person and as also a teacher.

I think they call this redundant in the OG because the also lies within a parallel element, when it should be attached to the also.

[rr23031980]

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

Is it correct to use both AND and ALSO together as shown in above option?

I feel the option C is the best option. I appreciate your help in understanding what went wrong in my analysis of Options C and D.

[tim]

OFFICIALLY CORRECT ANSWERS ARE CORRECT!
do not question officially correct answers!
far too many students on this forum make the mistake of questioning the correct answers; please note that doing so is a complete waste of your time and effort. i.e., exactly 0% of the time that you spend posting "isn't this official answer wrong?" is productive, and exactly 100% of that time is wasted.

"is this correct?" is never a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers. the answer is always yes.
"is this wrong?" / "is this X type of error?" is never a productive question to ask about one of GMAC's correct answers. the answer is always no.

instead, the questions you should be asking about correct official answers, if you don't understand them, are:
"why is this correct?"
"how does this work?"
"what understanding am i lacking that i need to understand this choice?"

this is a small, but hugely significant, change to your way of thinking.
you will suddenly find it much easier to understand the format, style, and conventions of the official problems if you retire the idea that they might be wrong.

[thanghnvn]

[quote="sdgril"]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
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
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
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
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

OA: D

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I have a question.

in the pattern

doing+comma+main clause (or main clause+comma+doing)

we know that the "doing "clause can show REASON, CONDITION, RESULT OR TIME of the main clause.

in the pattern

subject + do 1 and do 2

what is the meaning realation between "do 1" and "do 2" ?

in choice A, the meaning realation between "turning..." and main clause is not justified. A is wrong.

can you show that the meaning relation between "turned away" and "became" in B is wrong?

similarly, can you show that the meaning relation between "was" and "became" in C is wrong?

[jlucero]

I have a question.

in the pattern

doing+comma+main clause (or main clause+comma+doing)

we know that the "doing "clause can show REASON, CONDITION, RESULT OR TIME of the main clause.

in the pattern

subject + do 1 and do 2

what is the meaning realation between "do 1" and "do 2" ?

in choice A, the meaning realation between "turning..." and main clause is not justified. A is wrong.

can you show that the meaning relation between "turned away" and "became" in B is wrong?

similarly, can you show that the meaning relation between "was" and "became" in C is wrong?

Here's the core idea in B/C:

B. She turned away from X, and novelist Selma Lagerlöf in 1909 became the first woman...

C. Selma Lagerlöf was a novelist, and in 1909 she became the first woman...

Both of these sentences are (awkwardly) trying to make equally important two ideas that aren't equally important. Compare that to D:

D. A novelist, Selma Lagerlöf became...

This is a better structure for this sentence as the opening phrase tells us more about Selma, but the part after the comma gives us the main idea of the sentence.

[thanghnvn]

[quote="sdgril"]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.


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
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
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

Thank you Lucero,

I aggree that the 2 actions/verbs in B and C should not be important equally and B/C is wrong.

I agree that D is best . But I want you to show me why the meaning relation between "who turned" and "Selma became" in C is better than the meaning relation between 2 verbs in B/C.

because the "and" is used in B/C, there is no meaning relation between two verbs connected by "and" .

So, there must be meaning relation between "who turned" and "Selma Became..." in choice C. what is the meaning relation here. ? .

this sentence shows that gmat plays a meaning game on us.

in general, there must be meaning relation between the verb in the relative clause and the verb in the main clause? do you agree with me. ? that is reason D is correct . So, what is the meaning realation? I think the meaning realattion can ve varied. I can give you some examples.

The person, who study gmat hard, get a good score on gmat.

(the meaning relation is somewhat causal)

The person, who study gmat lazily, get good a good score on gmat
(the meaning relation is somewhat contradictory)

I think we do need to know many kinds of meaning relation. we need to know only that there is meaning relation between the verb in relative clause and that in the main clause. and this is the point, which gmat wants to test us.

I want very much Manhattan experts to comment on my above thinking.

[thanghnvn]

Is it true that , In B, the two actions/verb have no sequence in time. But in D, the verb in the relative clause happens before "became" in main clause. this sequecence is what we need.

is my thinking correct?

[jlucero]

B/C/D don't have a significant difference in the time when events take place. So no, don't use that split.

As for your first post, there are too many grammatical mistakes in your examples for it to be helpful to your understanding of this problem. But you're emphasizing the wrong part of the sentence. The clause "who was a novelist" isn't the issue here, which is why I left it out of my previous example. Let me add them in:

C. Selma Lagerlöf was a novelist (who did X), and in 1909 she became the first woman...

D. A novelist (who did X), Selma Lagerlöf became...

What's inside this clause doesn't have to match up with what's outside of it. You can say "The man who ran 10 miles yesterday is at the grocery store" because the clause "who ran" has nothing to do with the timing of "is at the grocery store".