question from OG 10th

[magical cook]

The answer is E; however, I dont know how the sentence can complete with the choice E... Can anyone please explain why E is the answer??

[maxim730]

Hmm, I would probably choose between B and E.

Is that a period at the end of "....First World War."??

[magical cook]

Thanks for the reply.

It's comma not a period after world war. If the answer is E, I just wonder how the two sentence gramatically connect without conjunction between them.

[Neo2000]

"Being crippled" is incorrect.
C is incorrect too.
That leaves you E

[magical cook]

Thanks for the replay.

Yes, I dont think other choices seem to be correct either, but I still do not get how the two sentences connects without conjunction.

His arm cripped
He worked by doing

[Neo2000]

His right hand and arm crippled by a snipper's bullet during the First World War,Horace Pippin, a Black American Painter, worked by holding ............

This sentence looks good to me. It tells me how/when Horace became a cripple and how he continued to paint.

What conjunction are you looking for and why?

[magical cook]

Thanks for replay again.

E looks ok if there is "since" or "As" before his arm cripped. that explaines why he has to work that way. but without conjunction like since or as to explain the reason, I think the two sentences can't connect...

[Neo2000]

Umm, why do the two sentences need to connect? You seem to be looking for some kind of connection where there isnt any or even when there's no need of!

Imagine we were at Horace's art gallery and I was telling you something about Horace. Then I could tell you the entire sentence above and BAM!! you would know somethign about Horace!

Are you looking for "Horace worked (that way) because (of something) ??

His arm crippled, Horace worked by doing

[magical cook]

Thanks Neo for taking your time.

so, two sentences without any conjenction is gramatically correct? (I think i was kinda stuck at this simple question...)

The conjenction dose not need to be since or because to explain, but I thought at least there should be AND to connect two sentences.

His arm cripped, "and" He workd by doing...


Then, I have no doubt but there is only a comma between two sentences.

[Neo2000]

Thanks Neo for taking your time.

Any time

His arm cripped, "and" He workd by doing...

AND would be incorrect in the above sentence. See, what the sentence does is to give us a reason why horace painted the way he did. The emphasis is on the way he painted, the WW part is the reason behind it.

[magical cook]

Thanks Neo.

Ok....I think I got it. first of all, the first sentence is not actually complete sentence because there is no actual verb, so that means first sentence is modifying the subject of the second sentence.

Thanks for patiently explaing it to me!

Rina

[maxim730]

oooh, I totally didn't see the word "being" in B. E is the best choice available.

[aim-wsc]

aha thats a great explanation Neo
thanks for taking your time

[Stacey Koprince]

This is a great teaching question - we use it in class, actually. As neo pointed out, the opening clause is a modifier, not a complete sentence, so we don't need a coordinating conjunction to connect to the non-underlined portion. Also, some other reasons why the various answers are wrong:

(A) "Having" is the wrong tense - the sentence should be in past tense. "being" is used incorrectly.

(B) Meaning is wrong. He doesn't paint in this weird way "in spite of" being crippled, but because he was crippled. "being" is also used incorrectly.

(C) "Had been" is the wrong tense. For past perfect, the two events have to happen at distinct times. The bullet and the crippling are basically happening simultaneously.

(D) "The right hand and arm" is ambiguous. Whose hand and arm? Needs "his" instead of "the" to make sure we know we're talking about Horace's hand and arm. Also, "being" is used incorrectly.

(E) Sounds funny. But it's fine grammatically. This is how they'll get you to ignore / cross off a sentence that is grammatically correct - they make it sound funny but there's nothing actually wrong with it.

[800guy]

This is a great teaching question - we use it in class, actually. As neo pointed out, the opening clause is a modifier, not a complete sentence, so we don't need a coordinating conjunction to connect to the non-underlined portion. Also, some other reasons why the various answers are wrong:

(A) "Having" is the wrong tense - the sentence should be in past tense. "being" is used incorrectly.

(B) Meaning is wrong. He doesn't paint in this weird way "in spite of" being crippled, but because he was crippled. "being" is also used incorrectly.

(C) "Had been" is the wrong tense. For past perfect, the two events have to happen at distinct times. The bullet and the crippling are basically happening simultaneously.

(D) "The right hand and arm" is ambiguous. Whose hand and arm? Needs "his" instead of "the" to make sure we know we're talking about Horace's hand and arm. Also, "being" is used incorrectly.

(E) Sounds funny. But it's fine grammatically. This is how they'll get you to ignore / cross off a sentence that is grammatically correct - they make it sound funny but there's nothing actually wrong with it.

thanks so much stacey!!