Although she had been known as an effective legislator

[tim]

That seems a little subjective. It really depends on the student whether they are able to do something "easily".

[RonPurewal]

"Easy" is one of those words that pretty much shouldn't be used on forums like this one.
At best, it accomplishes nothing at all; at worst, it offends people who don't find something "easy".

I'm sure you had no such intention, but, imagine that you're someone who finds this particular topic difficult and frustrating. You log on to this forum, and here's someone saying "xxxxx easily xxxxx".
That's not going to feel very good.

[RonPurewal]

In terms of your actual question, backward constructions are much more likely to have a subject+verb that appear physically close to each other. Perhaps that's what you mean by "we can easily find xxx".

If modifiers are attached to a noun, they most often follow the noun.
In a normal subject+verb construction—in which the subject comes before the verb—any such modifiers will appear between the subject and the verb.
In a backward construction, they won't, since they'll appear after both.

[Paris,Texas]

Hi, Ron

I want to discuss "with her participation in the hearings ..." in choice C.

As you said in some posts, if "with XXX" is after the "main sentence +comma", "with XXX" describes the consequences/aspects(components) about "the main sentence".

However, in this problem, because the hearings were televised nationwide, BJ became famous. So, if we use the "main sentence+comma+with XXX" here , we reverse the relationships between the cause and effects. So, wrong.

am I right?
Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

that's a valid (and astute) observation.

[gbyhats]

Hi Dear Manhattan Instructors

Are there more than one error with choice (A)?
(I replicated the question below)

Although she had been known as an effective legislator first in the Texas Senate and later in the United States House of Representatives, not until Barbara Jordan’s participation in the hearings on the impeachment of President Richard Nixon in 1974 was she made a nationally recognized figure, as it was televised nationwide.

A. later in the United States House of Representatives, not until Barbara Jordan’s participation in the hearings on the impeachment of President Richard Nixon in 1974 was she made a nationally recognized figure, as it was
B. later in the United States House of Representatives, Barbara Jordan did not become a nationally recognized figure until 1974, when she participated in the hearings on the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, which were
C. 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
D. then also later in the United States House of Representatives, not until 1974 did Barbara Jordan become a nationally recognized figure, as she participated in the hearings on the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, being
E. then also later in the United States House of Representatives, Barbara Jordan did not become a nationally recognized figure until 1974, when she participated in the hearings on the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, which was

I'm just curious to know all the errors in Choice (A), since I saw Ron used plural form of "error:

choice (a), although it contains other errors, is another one of these backward constructions.

--

1/
What I can tell is the obvious one -- pronoun "it" does NOT match "hearings"; should be "they" instead.

--

2/
Also is " 'she' refers to 'Barbara Jordan’s'" an error?

Earlier in this post I see:

in A, "she" can not refer to " Barbara Jordan’s" .
Is that thing right?

yes, you are right that "she" cannot refer to "Barbara Jordan's", as a subjective pronoun cannot refer to a possessive noun..

However, I see in other posts saying this is not an error:
[Link A]: pronouns-possessive-poison-t9533.html
(Second post on the first page)
[Link B]: can-a-pronoun-refer-back-to-possessive-t25295.html
(Also second post on the first page)

[RonPurewal]

the key observation is here:

1/
What I can tell is the obvious one -- pronoun "it" does NOT match "hearings"; should be "they" instead.

the point is that there's another, much more fundamental, error--and there will ALWAYS be a more fundamental error.
ALWAYS.
Always always always.

you should not pay any attention to this whole pronoun/possessive issue. it is NEVER necessary, and, if you confuse anything, it could cause you to eliminate correct answers.

i discussed this here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p46683

[gbyhats]

you should not pay any attention to this whole pronoun/possessive issue. it is NEVER necessary, and, if you confuse anything, it could cause you to eliminate correct answers.

i discussed this here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p46683

Very interesting!!!

I love this!

[RonPurewal]

it's always nice to have less complexity.

[SD501]

I thought that in B, "which" always must refer to the previous name, that is Nixon, and for this reason it would be incorrect. But in fact, OA is B.
Can any instructor explain?

Although she had been known as an effective legislator first in the Texas Senate and later in the United States House of Representatives, not until Barbara Jordan’s participation in the hearings on the impeachment of President Richard Nixon in 1974 was she made a nationally recognized figure, as it was televised nationwide.
A. later in the United States House of Representatives, not until Barbara Jordan’s participation in the hearings on the impeachment of President Richard Nixon in
1974 was she made a nationally recognized figure, as it was
B. later in the United States House of Representatives, Barbara Jordan did not become a nationally recognized figure until 1974, when she participated in the hearings on the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, which were
C. 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
D. then also later in the United States House of Representatives, not until 1974 did Barbara Jordan become a nationally recognized figure, as she participated in the hearings on the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, being
E. then also later in the United States House of Representatives, Barbara Jordan did not become a nationally recognized figure until 1974, when she participated in the hearings on the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, which was

Besides the redundant use of "then" and "later", does option D have other problems? like, what is the role of "as she participated ..." ? Also in D, can "being" correctly modify "hearings"?

[RonPurewal]

^^ "comma + __ing" modifiers don't modify nouns.

in fact, this is the whole purpose of "comma + __ing" modifiers: they specifically exist to describe actions, NOT nouns.

__

this is a fundamental error ("comma + __ing" is one of the few major types of modifiers consistently tested in SC). also, the redundancy issue should be rather obvious, because it occurs at the very beginning of the choices.

those are the two most significant issues with that answer choice. (paying attention to anything more subtle/nuanced is a mistake.)

[SD501]

^^ "comma + __ing" modifiers don't modify nouns.

in fact, this is the whole purpose of "comma + __ing" modifiers: they specifically exist to describe actions, NOT nouns.

__

this is a fundamental error ("comma + __ing" is one of the few major types of modifiers consistently tested in SC). also, the redundancy issue should be rather obvious, because it occurs at the very beginning of the choices.

those are the two most significant issues with that answer choice. (paying attention to anything more subtle/nuanced is a mistake.)

I love this answer!! Thank you, Ron!

[ShrutiD619]

Possibly, but you want to think less about logic and more about sentence structure:
She participated in the hearings (on the impeachment) (of President Richard Nixon), which were televised nationwide.

Impeachment is part of a prepositional phrase. If you want to use the relative pronoun "which", you should be describing the main noun in the noun phrase UNLESS it is completely obvious that you are talking about something else.

She participated in the [hearings on the impeachment], which were long hearings. (ok)

Hi Instructors,

Just wanted to clarify on this: Isnt "in the hearings" here a prepositional phrase in the sentence too?

It will be great if you could clarify! Also in another question:

[redacted -- no source posted]

Isnt "in 1992" a prepositional phrase so it should be ignored? What is which pointing to here?

[RonPurewal]

Just wanted to clarify on this: Isnt "in the hearings" here a prepositional phrase in the sentence too?

i don't know the grammar terms.
but, in context it's clear that the modifier is supposed to describe "hearings", so, clearly, you should instantly reject any interpretation that relies on ignoring or omitting "hearings"!

[RonPurewal]

Isnt "in 1992" a prepositional phrase so it should be ignored?

i had to redact the sentence you wrote, since you didn't provide a source. DO NOT EVER cite problems -- or pieces of problems -- without citing the original source!
in the future, we'll just delete posts that do this. but, i'll indulge the question, just this once.

in these constructions, you can only "ignore" or "bypass" modifiers OF THE NOUN YOU'RE DESCRIBING.

in other words:
xxxxxxx (NOUN) (modifier), which...
is only acceptable if "(modifier)" actually DESCRIBES "(NOUN)" -- in other words, if "(NOUN) + (modifier)" actually makes sense in isolation.

e.g.,
I've been reading books on resistance training, which have given me enough information to develop my own training program.
—> this sentence is OK
...because "on resistance training" ACTUALLY DESCRIBES "books". (i.e., "books on resistance training" makes sense by itself.)

I've been reading books on the subway, which have given me enough information to develop my own training program.
—> this sentence is WRONG
...because "on the subway" describes the entire ACTION of READING the books, not the books themselves (i.e., "books on the subway", by itself, is a nonsense phrase).


so, in the example you gave (which I had to redact), you can't use that modifier, because "in 1992" describes not just the noun but the entire action that precedes it.