Prep
Joachim Raff and Giacomo Meyerbeer are examples of the kind of composer who receives popular acclaim while living, often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again.
(A) often goes into decline after death, and never regains popularity again
(B) whose reputation declines after death and never regains its status again
(C) but whose reputation declines after death and never regains its former status
(D) who declines in reputation after death and who never regained popularity again
(E) then has declined in reputation after death and never regained popularity


Hello, Gmat professors....

I have a question about the usage of "Whose."

Usually gmat requires person to put "whose" to the closest noun that it modifies.

for example, "I have to learn the gmat strategies from Manhattan professors whose scores are really high."

but this prep question "whose" is not close to any noun it modifies .


Help, Ron!!!!!

please follow the forum rules and write the problem as originally written, including the underline. (i've provided the underline this time; from now on please render the problems accurately, thanks.)

the correct answer (c) contains 2 modifiers in a parallel structure. in such a construction, both parallel modifiers modify the same thing. (this is how parallel structures work in general, anyway: both parts of ANY parallel structure must have the same grammatical function.)

for instance,
i have a friend who can sing and whose dog can dance.
--> in this sentence, “who can sing” and “whose dog can dance” both modify “friend”.
the same is true with the two modifiers “who receives popular acclaim…” and “whose reputation declines…” in the correct answer to this problem.

Hi, I understand the parallelism concept in this exercise, but what I find confusing is the use of "but" after the comma because this usage suggests that we should look for a complete clause rather than a modifier. Would you explain why the use of "but" is right in this choice. Thanks in advance for your reply!!!

this “rule” is not really a rule. it's an approximate guideline in most cases, but it's definitely not a strict rule.
often, the comma will be omitted when there are two complete clauses -- if those clauses are short enough to render the comma unnecessary.
also -- again quite often -- a comma will be included even if the structures are not complete clauses, especially if the structures are long enough to make the sentence essentially unreadable without the comma.
for instance:
i shut the windows and locked the doors --> this sentence doesn't need any additional punctuation.
i shut the windows so firmly that i would later have trouble opening them, and locked the doors using both the standard locks and the deadbolts --> these are not complete clauses, but the sentence is still written with the comma, because it's absolutely unreadable without the comma (try it yourself).

MOST IMPORTANTLY
PUNCTUATION IS NOT TESTED ON THIS EXAM!
don't bother with “rules” based on punctuation, because (a) gmac doesn't test them, and, more importantly, (b) the vast majority of them will not be hard rules.
the only time you'll want to mind punctuation at all is when it actually differentiates different structures: for instance, “no comma + -ing” is very different from “comma + -ing”.
but, those kinds of things aren't really punctuation issues -- they are issues concerning the resulting structures. for instance, the example i just mentioned would be a modifier issue, not really a punctuation issue.

this “rule” is not really a rule. it's an approximate guideline in most cases, but it's definitely not a strict rule.
often, the comma will be omitted when there are two complete clauses -- if those clauses are short enough to render the comma unnecessary.
also -- again quite often -- a comma will be included even if the structures are not complete clauses, especially if the structures are long enough to make the sentence essentially unreadable without the comma.
for instance:
i shut the windows and locked the doors --> this sentence doesn't need any additional punctuation.
i shut the windows so firmly that i would later have trouble opening them, and locked the doors using both the standard locks and the deadbolts --> these are not complete clauses, but the sentence is still written with the comma, because it's absolutely unreadable without the comma (try it yourself).

MOST IMPORTANTLY
PUNCTUATION IS NOT TESTED ON THIS EXAM!
don't bother with “rules” based on punctuation, because (a) gmac doesn't test them, and, more importantly, (b) the vast majority of them will not be hard rules.
the only time you'll want to mind punctuation at all is when it actually differentiates different structures: for instance, “no comma + -ing” is very different from “comma + -ing”.
but, those kinds of things aren't really punctuation issues -- they are issues concerning the resulting structures. for instance, the example i just mentioned would be a modifier issue, not really a punctuation issue.