in B, the clause "when...." and the phrase "being..." are not good when they are placed side by side.

"when..." clause should be followed by a main clause

is that right?

Taken from some other post -

you should avoid "being" when expressing the IDENTITY or CHARACTERISTICS of some individual or thing.
otherwise, evaluate it on the same merits as you would any other verb

Example - being a avid gamer, Jim plays everyday - Incorrect
A avid gamer, Jim plays everyday - Correct

Buy this law we can eliminate B and D

I like this question. It is hard but basic and that is why gmatprep makes high quality questions.

Only when you understand what gmat want to test in a sc problem, we can master the problem and can make similar problems of high quality

Let me make some remote discusion so that we can master many questions on the test day and have a good thinking of SC.

adverbial modifies whole sentence. The problem is that in what relation with main claue, the adverbial is in. If adverbial is absolute phrase, it provide context for main clause and gmat test this by providing the cases in which absolute phrase is in the causal relation or simultaneous relation in incorrect answer choices.

In some case, when adverbial is DOING PHRASE, and the correct semantic relation between adverbial-doing phrase is simultaneous, gmat make it incorrect by make the simultanous relation causal one or subsequent relation. The purpose is to make us to realize the correct semantic (in meaning) relation and make us to write exact meaning.

gmat can move around the adverbial to distort the meaning of correct answer. pls, read articles of Stacey in beatthegmat forum for this.

what I want to say is that when gmat want to distort meaning of correct answer choice and make us realize the intended meaning in a SC problem, and when gmat doing so by TOUCHING the adverbial of the sentence, we have a hard problem. why hard, because it is hard to realize the illogic of adverbial

gmat can distort correct sentence by changing the semantic (in meaning) relation between adverbial and main clause (most hardest questions are in this type) by changing the place of adverbial

coming back to the quetion here. what is correct relation between the event "reluctant..." and the event "refuse..." only E makes correct relation. All other relations causal, simultaneous, are wrong.

RELATION BETWEEN 2 EVENTS is a good thinking.

I'm wondering if i'm mistaken in my reasons for eliminating these:

A. Charles Lindbergh, for his attempt at a solo transatlantic flight, was very reluctant to have any extra weight on his plane, he therefore

shouldn't we have an "and" or "so" he therefore? First clause is independent as well as second clause, but there is no conjunction. Funny because in C there is a awkwardly placed "so" as if they were tricking you.

B. When Charles Lindbergh was attempting his solo transatlantic flight, being very reluctant to have any extra weight on his plane, he

i see two problems here, am i mistaken in either?

(1). since "being" assumes the time period of the previous verb "was" it sounds like Charles was still reluctant to have extra weight while he was already in the air flying
(2). "being" starts off a comma + present participle modifier, which, although properly modifies Charles Lindbergh, is not a consequence of the previous clause.


C. Since he was very reluctant to carry any extra weight on his plane when he was attempting his solo transatlantic flight, so Charles Lindbergh

"so" sounds wrong, but i couldn't eliminate based on that alone. The only thing I could think of was "charles lindhberg" should immediately follow the initial subordinate clause? I know it's not one of the initial modifiers Ron mentions, but another in another video tommy had an example,

"Because of his undeniable appeal, all the women love tommy" <-- incorrect, Tommy should follow. This example is also not one of the "initial modifiers" Ron mentioned.

(2). "being" starts off a comma + present participle modifier, which, although properly modifies Charles Lindbergh, is not a consequence of the previous clause.

C. Since he was very reluctant to carry any extra weight on his plane when he was attempting his solo transatlantic flight, so Charles Lindbergh

[color=#FF0000]"so" sounds wrong, but i couldn't eliminate based on that alone. The only thing I could think of was "charles lindhberg" should immediately follow the initial subordinate clause?