Although she had been known as an effective legislator

[tim]

"with" is not the best way to express the meaning you're trying to convey, but I wouldn't eliminate this answer choice based on that alone. Instead, I'd focus on the far more obvious problem of the misuse of "which was".

[wangyinwei_2005]

Thank you,Tim
so, when we see "with.."and other word such as "because" or "as a result" which can indicate a much clearer meaning, we should not choose "with.."? [under the condition that other parts of the choices are correct]

[tim]

Rather than addressing anything that has to do with "with", I'll remind you of the preferred general approach to SC, which will in fact answer the specific question you've asked:

First focus on grammar issues until there are NO MORE grammar issues to deal with.

If two or more choices remain that are 100% grammatically correct, go with the one that makes the meaning more clear.

Those first two steps will ALWAYS get you to a correct answer. If you ever find yourself making a decision based on concision or anything else other than grammar and meaning, you have done something wrong in the first two steps.

[wangyinwei_2005]

Rather than addressing anything that has to do with "with", I'll remind you of the preferred general approach to SC, which will in fact answer the specific question you've asked:

First focus on grammar issues until there are NO MORE grammar issues to deal with.

If two or more choices remain that are 100% grammatically correct, go with the one that makes the meaning more clear.

Those first two steps will ALWAYS get you to a correct answer. If you ever find yourself making a decision based on concision or anything else other than grammar and meaning, you have done something wrong in the first two steps.

thanks a lot, Tim!

[tim]

Any time!

[Tadashi]

Hi experts,
Can I eliminate A&D because of wrong use of conjunction.
Although sentence 1, sentence 2, as sentence 3.

Please confirm.
ARIGATO.
Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

Hi experts,
Can I eliminate A&D because of wrong use of conjunction.
Although sentence 1, sentence 2, as sentence 3.

I'm not sure what you think is wrong here, but it's not hard to make a legitimate sentence with this construction.

Although most teachers struggle to pay for housing, the teachers at Singapore International School do not face the same difficulties, as they are provided free housing by the school..

In general, if you are looking at a linkage of three whole sentences as a single construction, you may want to tighten the net a bit.

[Tadashi]

Thanks Ron.
Would you agree with me that" D. then also later" is very awkward?

First...and then also later...

sounds terrible. not gmac style

[RonPurewal]

Thanks Ron.
Would you agree with me that" D. then also later" is very awkward?

First...and then also later...

sounds terrible. not gmac style

Here, "then" is used to mean "later". So, the use of both "then" and "later" is redundant.

(If "then" were used to indicate a logical consequence"”If x, then y"”then there would be no conflict in using it together with "later": If you party too hard, then you will suffer later.)

[Tadashi]

thanks, really helpful
Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[aditya8062]

Good Day RON

C says : later in the Untied States House of Representatives, it was not until 1974 that Barbara Jordan became a nationally recognized figure, with her participation in the hearings on the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, which was

honestly i feel there is nothing grammatically wrong with option C .Here is my logic:
people might argue that "which was" is wrong in C but i feel that "which" can refer to "impeachment" as well!!
for instance we can say : impeachment of Bill Clinton was televised nationwide

also "with her participation in the hearings on the impeachment of President Richard Nixon" is not wrong grammatically .this expression can serve as an adverbial modifier to previous clause

However there is a problem in such construction
construction such as main clause,modifier,modifier are normally less preferred in GMAT than the one in correct answer !

Also "when she participated in the hearings" is much better construction than "with her participation in the hearings"

so we can say that stylistically B is much better than C ,although C is not wrong grammatically

RON is my logic correct ?
thanks and regards

[RonPurewal]

C contains subject-verb disagreement. The hearings were televised.
An impeachment is a legal abstraction; it can't be televised.

Analogy: A professor's statement of her research findings can be televised, but her findings themselves (which are abstractions) cannot.

[RonPurewal]

Even if you don't know what "impeachment" is"”i.e., even if you think it might be some concrete thing that's capable of being televised"”you can still use context to figure out that the hearings were televised.

Specifically, the sentence is about how Barbara Jordan became famous.
According to the sentence, she participated in the hearings. Since the sentence is about how SHE became well-known, common sense dictates that those hearings were the thing that was shown on TV.

[FanPurewal]

For this one, IMO,
Since 'hearings' is plural, so we can eliminate A(was), C(was) and E(was)
Then we read B&D, and D is awkward in saying 'then also later', so, got B
I reckon this method is pretty fast^^

correct on (c) and (e); incorrect on (a).
(a) is a backward construction; the subject of "was" is "she", which comes afterward.

the easiest way to detect backward constructions is not directly, but, rather, just by figuring out that the noun(s) that precede the verb cannot be the subject.
here are four really simple examples (all are correct):
1) there is a car in the driveway.
2) there are two cars in the driveway.
here, there's nothing in front of the verb that could even be considered as a subject -- the only word in front of the verb is "there", which is neither a noun nor a pronoun. therefore, the subject is "car"/"cars".
3) on the table was a cell phone.
4) on the table were two cell phones.[/i]
here, "on the table" is a prepositional phrase, and so is ineligible to be the subject. therefore, the subject again must follow the verb (since nothing in front of the verb is left to be considered), and so the subject here is "cell phone(s)".

choice (a), although it contains other errors, is another one of these backward constructions.
"participation", "impeachment", and "nixon" are all trapped in prepositional phrases, so none of those can be the subject. therefore, the subject must be "she".
i.e., "was she..." = verb + subject.
it probably looks awkward to you if you aren't a native speaker of english (although this construction should be plenty familiar to anyone who *is* a native speaker of english), but you should know that it's legitimate.

to sum up, we can easily find the subject AFTER the verb in the backward constructions. am i right?