Katharine Graham

[SrishtiM905]

2 things: first, please remember to use the correct subject (first 5-8 words of the problem) and, second, please give us some specifics about whatever troubled you on this problem. Thanks!

B uses past perfect incorrectly (simple past for "it was only after" and past perfect for "it had won high praise" which comes later chronologically than when KG became publisher)

C has a problematic pronoun (it) - logically refers to Wash Post but structurally could refer to KG or publisher. Also, this sentence indicates that it moved into the first ranks as a result of having won high praise. The original sentence doesn't indicate that meaning and we can't just change the meaning of the sentence.

D is a sentence fragment - there's no verb for Wash Post, which is the ostensible subject.

E "moving" and "becoming" indicate something that's going on right now - this should be in the past. And "after Katherine Graham's becoming its publisher" is horrible.

That leaves us with A (where the second "it" pronoun is fine, by the way, because both logically and structurally it refers to Wash Post).

Hi Stacey,
My question is reagrding point C. I suppose we can not use 'it' for a person. thus, wouldn't it be incorret to say 'C has a problematic pronoun (it) - logically refers to Wash Post but structurally could refer to KG or publisher.'?

[RonPurewal]

well, this exam doesn't test "pronoun ambiguity", so there's no problem with "it".

in context, we know that "it" = "the washington post". so, as long as "the washington post" is there, the pronoun "it" is fine.

the biggest problem with that answer choice is the fact that it uses "...having won" (which implies an EARLIER occurrence) for praise that the paper didn't earn until the following decade.

[RonPurewal]

(note that you're responding to a post that's 9 years old. back then it wasn't so clear that "pronoun ambiguity" was irrelevant to this exam, so, stacey discussed it.)

[LeH174]

Hi Ron and Manhattan experts,
I am really really sorry to reopen this really old post. I am preparing for the test in the next few weeks. I have the problem following:
i learn SC grammar first. then i practice and find that there are many exceptions for the grammar rule. for example i did many questions and used the rule that pronoun cannot stand for Noun Of Noun and possessive. also, i apply that rule because OG explains the question that way. So when facing this question, i eliminate A and then find no answer choices correct. this now makes me confuse a lot.
i hope some advice from the forum for the way i should learn the grammar rule and apply it.
thanks so much.

[RonPurewal]

the rule that pronoun cannot stand for Noun Of Noun

^^ could you please cite where this is stated in the OG?
edition number + page number
thanks.

[LeH174]

the rule that pronoun cannot stand for Noun Of Noun

^^ could you please cite where this is stated in the OG?
edition number + page number
thanks.

Hi Ron,
thanks so much for your reply. I infer this from Question 102-11th. In that question, in choice E OG explains that 'them' cannot refer to book illustrations because the plural noun is the object of the preposition in.
Maybe i wrongly infer this grammar because of the knowledge that subject cannot be inside the prepositional phrase.
ex: this is the car of anna. she is very beautiful. As i know, 'she' cannot be the subject of the sentence. but it does not mean that she cannot refer to anna in another cases.
Am i right Ron.
Thanks so much

[RonPurewal]

11th edition! LOL...
we're on the 16th edition now (= the 2017 edition). the 11th edition is practically ancient history, by this point.

the material that's purged from those books is removed for a reason! in general, (i) those problems had issues of some kind that made them poor examples, and/or (ii) GMAC no longer tests the material that's central to those problems.

do not try to study sentence correction from a book that's FIVE editions out of date!

[JbhB682]

regarding (C), what are your thoughts on COMMA+ Having specifically ?

I think "having" specifically wrong.

"Having" is the present participple of the word "Have"

In (C) - Washington Post moved into the first rank BECAUSE OF having won praise

Can you move into first rank just because YOU HAVE WON praise.

Seems a bit strange to me

[JbhB682]

regarding (C), what are your thoughts on COMMA+ Having specifically ?

I think "having" specifically wrong.

"Having" is the present participple of the word "Have"

In (C) - Washington Post moved into the first rank BECAUSE OF having won praise

Can you move into first rank just because YOU HAVE WON praise.

Seems a bit strange to me

[Whit Garner]

regarding (C), what are your thoughts on COMMA+ Having specifically ?

I think "having" specifically wrong.

"Having" is the present participple of the word "Have"

In (C) - Washington Post moved into the first rank BECAUSE OF having won praise

Can you move into first rank just because YOU HAVE WON praise.

Seems a bit strange to me

s

Great point - comma+participle is an adverbial modifier, meaning that the "having won high praise" would modify some sort of earlier action in the sentence. In this example, it would mean that "having won high praise" is the reason that the paper moved into the first rank. That isn't the intended meaning of the sentence (it didn't move into the first rank because it won high praise), so you're correct to think it is strange!