another prep sc

[BG]

Introduced by Italian merchants resident in London during the sixteenth century, in England life insurance remained until the end of the seventeenth century a specialized contract between individual underwriters and their clients, typically being ship owners, overseas merchants, or professional moneylenders.
A in England life insurance remained until the end of the seventeenth century a specialized contract between individual underwriters and their clients, typically being
B in England life insurance had remained until the end of the seventeenth century a specialized contract between individual underwriters with their clients, who typically were
C until the end of the seventeenth century life insurance in England had remained a specialized contract between individual underwriters and their clients, typically
D life insurance in England remained until the end of the seventeenth century a specialized contract between individual underwriters and their clients, typically
E life insurance remained until the end of the seventeenth century in England a specialized contract between individual underwriters with their clients, who typically were

Ans:D
I chose C. why is C wrong?

[simbafizzle]

you should take note of the first word, Introduced and ask... what was introduced... it is thus health insurance that was introduced in England.

It then follows that this should remain as your subject throughout.

[BG]

there is "until the end of 17 centry", should we use perfect past tense?

[UnknownPhD]

there is "until the end of 17 centry", should we use perfect past tense?

Actually, this is a good question. No need to use past perfect tense, which makes the meaning changed. " ~ remained until ~ " is still remaining at the point of the time for the sentence. And more thing we need to notice is the location of "until ~ " D is better than C in terms location of the phrase.

[poojakrishnamurthy1]

Introduced by Italian merchants resident in London during the sixteenth century, in England life insurance remained until the end of the seventeenth century a specialized contract between individual underwriters and their clients, typically being ship owners, overseas merchants, or professional moneylenders.
A in England life insurance remained until the end of the seventeenth century a specialized contract between individual underwriters and their clients, typically being
B in England life insurance had remained until the end of the seventeenth century a specialized contract between individual underwriters with their clients, who typically were
C until the end of the seventeenth century life insurance in England had remained a specialized contract between individual underwriters and their clients, typically
D life insurance in England remained until the end of the seventeenth century a specialized contract between individual underwriters and their clients, typically
E life insurance remained until the end of the seventeenth century in England a specialized contract between individual underwriters with their clients, who typically were

Ans:D
I chose C. why is C wrong?

Its a modifier question. Introduced by Italian merchants resident in London during the sixteenth century, forms the modifier and should be immediately followed by by the noun it modifies--in this case "life insurance". Hence choices A,B, and C would be out.

One would be left with D and E. The correct idiom is between x and y and NOT between x with y.

Thus E would get eliminated.

The answer would be D. Hope this helps. :-)

[RonPurewal]

pooja is right on. make sure you get the takeaway here: in the case of an initial subject-less modifier in front of a comma, the modifier should always be followed IMMEDIATELY by the noun / noun phrase that's being modified.
there should not be any intervening constructions such as the prepositional phrase that appears here. totally unacceptable.

--

there's no need to use the past perfect tense, as the poster above has pointed out. the sentence makes no reference to a second past situation to which the first is relevant.
there doesn't necessarily have to be a change of events, but there does have to be some second past event or time marker to which the past-perfect event is relevant, or on which it has an impact or influence. that doesn't happen in this sentence.

analogy:
i stayed in school until i was 45 years old.
no need to use the past perfect here.

[nzomniac]

Ron/Stacey


i understand that option E is wrong because of its usage of "between with"

but
in option D (OA) , the phrase at the end that starts with ", typically"
i think has a problem

should n't it be ", who typically were"


My question is whether option D is fully correct in its usage of the phrase at the end?

[tim]

D is fine as it is, because it gets the point across. In fact, this is the preferred construction because it is more concise than your alternative..

[ikuta.yamahashi]

D is fine as it is, because it gets the point across. In fact, this is the preferred construction because it is more concise than your alternative..

Dear instructor:

I can get the right answer through POE, however, the question for me is can we introduce a noun modifier by typically, which is a adverbial?

In manhattan book, adv can modifier anything other than a noun or noun phrase.

Please help

Your ikuta.

[tim]

no, an adverb cannot be a noun modifier. but be careful what you call a noun modifier! do you see any examples here of an adverb modifying a noun?

[ikuta.yamahashi]

Dear Tim:

Sorry for my ambiguous question.
I know anverb cannot be a noun modifier, and that is why I am confused in this question.

In this question,

life insurance in England remained until the end of the seventeenth century a specialized contract between individual underwriters and their clients, typically

typically is an adverb, but it introduces a noun modifier.

I am wondering this usuage here.

Yours
Ikuta

[tim]

in this case, "typically" is modifying an understood (i.e. legally omitted) "being" verb. adverbs never modify nouns. ever.

[ikuta.yamahashi]

in this case, "typically" is modifying an understood (i.e. legally omitted) "being" verb. adverbs never modify nouns. ever.

Thank tim

So why this verb can be legally omitted?
Because after the elipsis the only adverb exists between the two noun, it is too hard for a non-native like me to understand the structure.
It is idiom or something principle here?
I know OA is OA, and no need agrue. So we have to stay in GMAC's playground, anyway I just want to know the rule of this game.
Thanks in advance my guru.

Your
Ikuta

[thanghnvn]

I am also unesay with "typically" . but all we have is Tim" explanation and I think we can not have more than that explanation. finally, grammar is pattern accepted.

Thank you, Tom

[tim]

yeah, if the fact that you're a non-native speaker prevents you from seeing that some words are omitted here and that it's okay, it's probably best just to consider it an idiom and move on.