Camille Claudet SC Problem

[JA750]

Hello,

Can you please explain to me how to quickly narrow down answer choices in this problem to arrive at the correct answer. Thanks!


Camille Claudet worked continuously through the 1880's and early 1890's with the sculptor Auguste Rodin; since there are very few signed works of hers, the inescapable conclusion seems to be one of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin's enormous production of that period.

a. inescapable conclusion seems to be one of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin's enormous production of that period

b. conclusion of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin's enormous production of that period seems inescapable

c. conclusion seems inescapable that part of Rodin's enormous production of that period was conceived and executed by Claudet

d. conclusion of part of Rodin's enormous production of that period having been conceived and executed by Claudet seems inescapable

e. seemingly inescapable conclusion is that Claudet would have conceived and executed part of Rodin's enormous production of that period.

[JA750]

Sorry. Here is the correct passage:

Camille Claudet worked continuously through the 1880's and early 1890's with the sculptor Auguste Rodin; since there are very few signed works of hers, the inescapable conclusion seems to be one of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin's enormous production of that period.

a. inescapable conclusion seems to be one of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin's enormous production of that period

b. conclusion of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin's enormous production of that period seems inescapable

c. conclusion seems inescapable that part of Rodin's enormous production of that period was conceived and executed by Claudet

d. conclusion of part of Rodin's enormous production of that period having been conceived and executed by Claudet seems inescapable

e. seemingly inescapable conclusion is that Claudet would have conceived and executed part of Rodin's enormous production of that period.

[RonPurewal]

hi --

to help us out, could you please provide some more specific details/questions?

in particular:
* which choices were you already able to eliminate, and why? which weren't you?
* between which choices were you debating?
* were there any structures that you didn't comprehend? any grammatical constructions that you weren't sure how to use?

that way we could provide specific answers. thanks!

[sumitmandowara]

I would pick C.

a. inescapable conclusion seems to be one of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin's enormous production of that period

b. conclusion of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin's enormous production of that period seems inescapable

d. conclusion of part of Rodin's enormous production of that period having been conceived and executed by Claudet seems inescapable

Choices A, B and D are wordy and awkward.. as in
a.) conclusion seems to be one of....
b.) conclusion of Claudet .... part of ...
d.) conclusion of ... of that period...

Which thereby leaves C and E for the fight,

E maintains the tense past + conditional (usage of would)
but the "...seemingly inescapable conclusion is that.. " sounds bad to the ear when compared to C's "...conclusion seems inescapable that.."

So I chose C.

Please Suggest.

[RonPurewal]

a. inescapable conclusion seems to be one of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin's enormous production of that period

here, "of + claudet + VERBing" is incorrect, for the reasons detailed at the following link:
post26678.html#p26678

b. conclusion of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin's enormous production of that period seems inescapable

same problem

d. conclusion of part of Rodin's enormous production of that period having been conceived and executed by Claudet seems inescapable

same problem here too, although with a different construction (of + part ... + VERBing)

this is actually a rather frequently tested construction, since it comes up so much in conversational english. in fact, because it is so ubiquitous in conversation, it may well be harder for native speakers to eliminate it than for non-native speakers to eliminate it!

Choices A, B and D are wordy and awkward.. as in

well... ok
remember, though:
"wordy" and "awkward" are not errors -- you should try to find at least one error, of either grammar or meaning, in each incorrect answer choice.
if you can reliably identify wordiness or awkwardness, then you can use them as leading indicators of an error -- i.e., if a sentence contains wordiness or awkwardness, then you can bet that there will also be a genuine error somewhere else in the sentence.

on the other hand, from extensive empirical experience, i feel comfortable declaring that it's not a good idea for non-native speakers of english to try to identify "awkwardness".
it's just way too hard -- frankly, of the hundreds of non-native speakers with whom i've worked on sentence correction, not one has reliably been able to distinguish "awkwardness" from non-awkwardness.

Which thereby leaves C and E for the fight,

E maintains the tense past + conditional (usage of would)

this is the accurate reason why choice (c) is incorrect. there is no reason to use the conditional (with "would") -- we're not talking about something that would have happened, given some hypothetical condition. (also, the other usage of "would" -- as the past tense of "will" -- doesn't apply here either.)

we are talking about a "seemingly inescapable conclusion" regarding something that happened in the past, so we should just use the simple past tense as in (c).

(c) is correct.

[saptadeepc]

a. inescapable conclusion seems to be one of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin's enormous production of that period

here, "of + claudet + VERBing" is incorrect, for the reasons detailed at the following link:
post26678.html#p26678

b. conclusion of Claudet conceiving and executing part of Rodin's enormous production of that period seems inescapable

same problem

d. conclusion of part of Rodin's enormous production of that period having been conceived and executed by Claudet seems inescapable

same problem here too, although with a different construction (of + part ... + VERBing)

this is actually a rather frequently tested construction, since it comes up so much in conversational english. in fact, because it is so ubiquitous in conversation, it may well be harder for native speakers to eliminate it than for non-native speakers to eliminate it!

Choices A, B and D are wordy and awkward.. as in

well... ok
remember, though:
"wordy" and "awkward" are not errors -- you should try to find at least one error, of either grammar or meaning, in each incorrect answer choice.
if you can reliably identify wordiness or awkwardness, then you can use them as leading indicators of an error -- i.e., if a sentence contains wordiness or awkwardness, then you can bet that there will also be a genuine error somewhere else in the sentence.

on the other hand, from extensive empirical experience, i feel comfortable declaring that it's not a good idea for non-native speakers of english to try to identify "awkwardness".
it's just way too hard -- frankly, of the hundreds of non-native speakers with whom i've worked on sentence correction, not one has reliably been able to distinguish "awkwardness" from non-awkwardness.

Which thereby leaves C and E for the fight,

E maintains the tense past + conditional (usage of would)

this is the accurate reason why choice (c) is incorrect. there is no reason to use the conditional (with "would") -- we're not talking about something that would have happened, given some hypothetical condition. (also, the other usage of "would" -- as the past tense of "will" -- doesn't apply here either.)

we are talking about a "seemingly inescapable conclusion" regarding something that happened in the past, so we should just use the simple past tense as in (c).

(c) is correct.

Hi Ron,

Can you please explain a little more on this part -

there is no reason to use the conditional (with "would") -- we're not talking about something that would have happened, given some hypothetical condition. (also, the other usage of "would" -- as the past tense of "will" -- doesn't apply here either.)

I thought, since it is not proved, we dont know if it happened for sure or not, and hence "would have happened"

I was able to narrow down choices, but could not figure out this subtle difference in meaning. Can you please help explain with examples.

thanks

[RonPurewal]

I thought, since it is not proved, we dont know if it happened for sure or not, and hence "would have happened"

the sentence is talking about an "inescapable conclusion", implying certainty that the event happened. therefore, the conditional, which implies a dubious or contrary-to-fact hypothetical, is inappropriate.

[saptadeepc]

I thought, since it is not proved, we dont know if it happened for sure or not, and hence "would have happened"

the sentence is talking about an "inescapable conclusion", implying certainty that the event happened. therefore, the conditional, which implies a dubious or contrary-to-fact hypothetical, is inappropriate.

Ron,

thanks for the post, but I still have one doubt about it.

When we draw conclusion, as in one drawn here, are we not skeptical about the scenario at hand ?

For example

In this sentence, the author says "seemingly inescapable conclusion", meaning that most probably this would have happened.

If the author had been 100% sure why shall we draw conclusion ?
rather the issue at hand should be a fact !

I 'am sorry to drag such a minor issue, but would like to know why exactly would is incorrect here.

[RonPurewal]

When we draw conclusion, as in one drawn here, are we not skeptical about the scenario at hand ?

a "conclusion" is any endpoint of a logical (or even illogical) thought process.
conclusions can be 100% certain; they can also be wild guesses; they can also be anything in between.