the usage of "Whose"

[MdAbuAsad]

read the thread, please. this issue has already been addressed, only a few posts above yours.

It is very difficult to search the specific post when the thread is consist of many more pages. So, it would be better for students if there may have numbering system of the post besides every post like post#1, post#2 and so on.
It's my personal conviction. So, please don't take it otherwise.
Thanks Ron...

[MdAbuAsad]

Here is my explanation to legitimate C.
A/ there is a word ''reputation'' in every option but A.
We can write A) in a simple sentence like below:
A) >>does not make any sense. without the word (reputation) '' often goes into decline after death'' is going to be ridiculous because when someone is dead s/he is already in declined.

There is another problem in A)
A) says " regains popularity again"
Suppose, If I say: I recaptured it. means>>I lost it and captured it again. But, If I say: I recaptured it again. Means>> I lost it second time and it is back for the second time.
Here, the sentence did not say s/he regain the popularity for the second time. So, we can cross out the option A safely along with B and D for using ''regain-again'' as redundancy.

Now, The remaining option is only C and E. There is a parallelism marker in C and E. We can examine it by the following simple sentence:
C) He is someone who receives acclaim, but whose reputation declines and never regains.
here, declines and regains both are present tense. The parallelism is perfectly fine.

E) He is someone who receives acclaim (1), then (who) has declined (2) in reputation and (who) never regained (3).
Here, I am randomly changing the tense! different verb will be parallel if the intended meaning makes sense.
1) says: this is happening right away,
2) say: this is started past but still happening
3) says: this happened past and there is no existence right on the moment. here, 3rd part (regained) occurred before 1st part (receives acclaim) happened>> interesting (which does not make sense).
Did I make any mistake to understand anything regarding this sentence correction, Ron?
Thanks…

Prep
Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of composer who receives popular acclaim while living, often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again.
(A) often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again
(B) whose reputation declines after death and never regains its status again
(C) but whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status
(D) who declines in reputation after death and who never regained popularity again
(E) then has declined in reputation after death and never regained popularity

Hi Ron, I'm very much bother in the use of 'pronoun'. In C, what's the antecedent of ''its''-I mean ''its'' refers to what?
Thanks...

[RonPurewal]

these statements are all generalities ("This is true in general, regardless of timeframe").

GENERALITIES are expressed in the PRESENT tense. it's incorrect to express timeless factual generalities in any other tense.

you can tell right away that this sentence is going to consist ENTIRELY of generalities—just from the way it STARTS:
Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of...

these are dead people, so, the use of "are" IMMEDIATELY tells us that the sentence is going to generalize about them. that's the only possible way in which the present tense could make sense here.

therefore, everything ELSE about them should ALSO be in the present tense.

there's absolutely no point in thinking about the other tenses (e.g., the ones in choice E) in any more detail than that. if they aren't the present, they're wrong.

In C, what's the antecedent of ''its''-I mean ''its'' refers to what?
Thanks...

"reputation"
his reputation never gets its former high status back.

[MdAbuAsad]

In C, what's the antecedent of ''its''-I mean ''its'' refers to what?
Thanks...

"reputation"
his reputation never gets its former high status back.

If we replace 'its' with ''reputation'', the the sentence will be:
Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of composer who receives popular acclaim while living, but whose reputation declines after death and never regains reputation former status.
Ron, I'm not saying that this sentence is wrong but it seems to me awkward as a non-native. Do you think that it looks awkward. Also, ''its'' is possessive, so should I use possessive ''reputation's''? then the sentence will be:
Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of composer who receives popular acclaim while living, but whose reputation declines after death and never regains reputation's former status.. It also seems weird to. But, i don't know why it makes me confused?

therefore, everything ELSE about them should ALSO be in the present tense

Ron, is it applicable for all dead peoples if i use their generalities?
If i say:
Mr. X has died 20 years ago. He was a good teacher. Here, 'was' indicates past tense. Actually, i did not get this point.
Thanks Ron for your help

[RonPurewal]

if english is not your first language, then "awkward" and "weird" are completely meaningless concepts. do not think about them.
if you try to think about whether things are "awkward" or "weird", you will just be producing random guesses.

[RonPurewal]

Ron, is it applicable for all dead peoples if i use their generalities?
If i say:
Mr. X has died 20 years ago. He was a good teacher. Here, 'was' indicates past tense. Actually, i did not get this point.

this ^^ is not a "generality" at all, in the sense i'm talking about. this is a very specific statement, about one very specific person—there's nothing general about it.

go back and look at this sentence again. this sentence is talking about "the kind of composer who (GENERALLY) does xxxxx".
your example is COMPLETELY different.

[Md Abdur Rakib]

hello instructors

besides the redundancy (regains/again) and the lack of conjunction"but"
is there any error in (B) ?

thanks!

i don't see anything else right away, but those are two pretty big problems already.
(you can also view "its status" as a meaning problem, rather than as a redundant construction: it's supposed to be the person itself, not his reputation, who has a "status".)

Dear,

I just confused a little.

Who is the referent of "its " in the correct answer C ?



Thanks

[RonPurewal]

honestly, if we just gave answers to a question like that ^^ then we wouldn't be helping you.
the answer to that question should be absolutely clear -- actually for either of two reasons, here:

• if you're thinking at all about the meaning of the sentence, you should understand which thing might "regain its status".
• ...furthermore, there's only one singular noun in this entire sentence!

if you honestly have no idea what this pronoun stands for, then that means you're completely ignoring the meaning of the words, and you're trying to treat "grammar" as though it were algebra.
remember, THE WHOLE POINT OF THE VERBAL SECTION is that the problems REQUIRE COMMON-SENSE UNDERSTANDING and HUMAN REASONING -- and that it's IMPOSSIBLE to solve them with "rules".
this is quite literally the entire reason why this exam has 2 parts (quant and verbal), with 2 separate scores, in the first place.
if you are treating "grammar" as though it were a bunch of Excel formulas, then, it will be impossible for you to solve ANY SC problem on this exam. you MUST figure out WHAT THE SENTENCE ••SHOULD•• SAY (regardless of whether the original version is correct) BEFORE you start thinking about "grammar" or "mechanics".

[LiT706]

Hi RON，
Can I solve this SC problem in this way?
1)First, both "REGAIN" and "AGAIN " appear in the sentence, and this is completely unnecessary.
Thus, we can eliminate A,B,D
2) Unlike "although" and "but", "then" cannot serve as a conjunction word, so E is a RUN-ON .
Thus, we can eliminate E
And only C is the answer.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

That's almost correct. You're right about the redundancy of 'again' in A, B, and D. However, the word 'then' isn't acting as a conjunction in E; the verbs could be part of a parallel construction (i.e. a list). But of course the verbs wouldn't be correct if that were the case.

[LiT706]

That's almost correct. You're right about the redundancy of 'again' in A, B, and D. However, the word 'then' isn't acting as a conjunction in E; the verbs could be part of a parallel construction (i.e. a list). But of course the verbs wouldn't be correct if that were the case.

Thanks a lot！

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]