GMATPrep SC: It was only after Katharine Graham

[bangu]

It was only after Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers, and it was under her command that the paper won high praise for its unrelenting reporting of the Watergate scandal.

A) It was only after Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers, and it was under her command that the paper won high praise
B) It was only after Katharine Graham's becoming publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers, and under her command it had won high praise
C) Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 and only after that did it move into the first rank of American newspapers, having won high praise under her command
D) Moving into the first rank of American newspapers only after Katharine Graham became its publisher in 1963, The Washington Post, winning high praise under her command
E) Moving into the first rank of American newspapers only after Katharine Grahame's becoming its publisher in 1963, The Washington Post won high praise under her command

This question is posted earlier, however, the explanation provided is not that I can understand. My particular question is, we have 3 "It" in original sentence. First one I think is not referring to anything, second one is referring to WP (however it can refer to KG or publisher as well) and the third one again has no referent.

In earlier explanation, it said in C it is not clear what It is referring to, on the same line I think A is even more ambiguous. Can you please explain how in C It is ambiguous and in A it is not?

[RonPurewal]

are you sure that this is an official gmatprep question? while it's not wildly different from the official problems i've seen, it's not as "tight" (in terms of concision, diction, etc.) as most of those problems.

--

in any case, the main problem i see with choice (c) isn't a pronoun issue; rather, it's the participial modifier beginning with "having". if you write "...having won high praise under her command", the implication is that the paper had already won high praise by the time it moved into the highest echelon of american newspapers - an implication that is at odds with the intended meaning, and is absurd to boot (the watergate crisis was 10-11 years after the mentioned date of 1963).

--

there's really no pronoun issue with choice (a), because two of the "it"s are a special construction in which they don't really have single-word antecedents. for example if i write
it was surprising to me that you would say something like that,
this is proper english. if you want to get technical, you could say that the pronoun "it" stands for the entire noun clause "that you would say something like that", but it's easier just to think of this as a special construction.
in choice (a), "it was only after KG became..." and "it was under her command..." are both examples of this type of construction, so the remaining "it" is the only pronoun that really deserves serious consideration.

still, i agree with you that choice (a), while not strictly incorrect, suffers from sloppy writing.

[H]

It is indeed from GMATPrep.
The question has been discussed many times on this board.
Don't you think the "that" in C refers to the entire clause preceding "and"? Or do you think that it is acceptable to use "that" to refer to 1963? I thought that "it" should be used to refer to the "same thing".

[Guest]

t was only after Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers, and it was under her command that the paper won high praise for its unrelenting reporting of the Watergate scandal.


QUESTION: can we use possessive pronoun to refer back to katherine graham? Isn't there a specific rule in GMAT when we can use possessive pronouns?

Thanks..

[JonathanSchneider]

Possessive pronouns CAN refer back to subject or object nouns - totally okay. However, subject and object pronouns CANNOT refer back to possessive nouns.

[JonathanSchneider]

H, I'm not really sure what you mean by "same thing." Do you mean the same thing as the "that"?

[Guest]

C. Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 and only after that did it move into the first rank of American newspapers, having won high praise under her command

In this sentence, I think "that" refer to "Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963". Therfore this point is another mistake for C. because "that" and other pronouns must refer to noun, not sentences. Right? tutor.

[Guest]

Is A the answer to this question? If so, what is wrong with E?

[RonPurewal]

C. Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 and only after that did it move into the first rank of American newspapers, having won high praise under her command

In this sentence, I think "that" refer to "Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963". Therfore this point is another mistake for C. because "that" and other pronouns must refer to noun, not sentences. Right? tutor.

absolutely correct. "that" needs an antecedent, and it doesn't have one.

[RonPurewal]

Is A the answer to this question? If so, what is wrong with E?

the initial modifier in (e) is constructed with a present participle, "moving..."
if that's the case, then that implies that "moving" is contemporaneous with the main clause. it isn't, though; the modifier takes place distinctly before the action of the main clause.

[H]

C. Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 and only after that did it move into the first rank of American newspapers, having won high praise under her command

In this sentence, I think "that" refer to "Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963". Therfore this point is another mistake for C. because "that" and other pronouns must refer to noun, not sentences. Right? tutor.

absolutely correct. "that" needs an antecedent, and it doesn't have one.

Thanks Ron.

However, I thought that "after that" is a special construction similar to "after which". The "which" in "after which" doesn't have an explicit antecedent, but it refers to an event that isn't explicitly stated.

Here is an example I found in GMATPrep Exam#2:

Because Miranda, the smallest moon of Uranus, has a large number of different surface features, including craters, mountains, valleys, and fractures, some astronomers suggest that at one time repeated impacts broke the surface apart, and after which the fragments were subsequently rejoined because of mutual gravitational attraction.

(A) repeated impacts broke the surface apart, and after which the fragments were subsequently rejoined because of
(B) repeated impacts on the surface broke it apart, after which the fragments having rejoined with
(C) through repeated impacts that the surface broke apart, after which the fragments subsequently rejoined by
(D) the surface broke apart with repeated impacts, after which the fragments having rejoined through
(E) the surface broke apart as a result of repeated impacts, after which the fragments rejoined through

According to Stacey's post here: http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/bec ... t2243.html
If I understand her correctly, she is saying that the "which" doesn't refer to an explicitly stated noun because "after which" is a special construction.
Or am I missing something?
Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

However, I thought that "after that" is a special construction similar to "after which". The "which" in "after which" doesn't have an explicit antecedent, but it refers to an event that isn't explicitly stated.

the context here is completely different. in this case, "after that" doesn't even appear in a subordinate clause, so no such comparison makes sense.
you cannot use relative pronouns such as "which" outside subordinate clauses.

Here is an example I found in GMATPrep Exam#2:

Because Miranda, the smallest moon of Uranus, has a large number of different surface features, including craters, mountains, valleys, and fractures, some astronomers suggest that at one time repeated impacts broke the surface apart, and after which the fragments were subsequently rejoined because of mutual gravitational attraction.

(A) repeated impacts broke the surface apart, and after which the fragments were subsequently rejoined because of
(B) repeated impacts on the surface broke it apart, after which the fragments having rejoined with
(C) through repeated impacts that the surface broke apart, after which the fragments subsequently rejoined by
(D) the surface broke apart with repeated impacts, after which the fragments having rejoined through
(E) the surface broke apart as a result of repeated impacts, after which the fragments rejoined through

According to Stacey's post here: http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/bec ... t2243.html
If I understand her correctly, she is saying that the "which" doesn't refer to an explicitly stated noun because "after which" is a special construction.
Or am I missing something?
Thanks in advance.

hmm.
my interpretation is that "which" in choice (e), as well as choice (d), refers properly to the noun "impacts". in fact, i would eliminate the first three choices based on this criterion: the "which" in those choices doesn't properly refer to a noun.

i see no reason why "after which" would behave in a manner different from that of the myriad other constructions involving preposition + "which" (such as "in which", "to which", "of which", etc.), ALL of which** follow precisely the same rule as does plain old "which".

stacey and i will confer.

**heh. this wasn't even intentional.

[StaceyKoprince]

In that other post, I did not actually say that "after which" isn't referring to a noun. I said that it IS referring to a noun (impacts) and that noun happens to be an action noun. So you can have "which" refer to an action, because that action is presented in the form of a noun.

I also wasn't saying that "after which" behaves differently than any other "which" construction in general. I was just pointing out that the word "after" conveys a certain meaning, and we have to make sure that this meaning makes sense in the context of the sentence. Specifically, the structure has to be <some action in noun form> <after which> <some other action>. You could not, for example, substitute in the plain word "which." Nor could you substitute in, say, "to which." Etc.

That's all! :)

[H]

Sorry for creating confusion.
Ron, Stacey, thanks for your clarifications =)

[H]

Not sure whether I should post it here or create another thread for this SC in prep exam#2.

Maybe I should post here because it is still related to the similar usage question regarding 'after that'.

Unlike bananas, which can be picked green and ripened artificially, strawberries must be picked when they are fully ripe, and they remain at peak flavor for only four or five days after that.

I thought that a pronoun 'that' should refer to a stated noun (phrase). But apparently, 'that' refers to a stated clause - "when they are fully ripe". Hope that this time my RC skill isn't as bad as last time =P