Hi,
Was wondering why greg referenced “first” for this application of previously reference strategy.
In my attempt, I had previously referenced the entire sentence of “Boswall being established to fame”. Hence the answer I had picked was “opportunism”, I still don’t understand why it is wrong.
Does anyone have tips on how I can spot the previously reference ideas / nouns better - I seem to be getting all wrong
The only claim being made in the prose preceding the the semi-colon is that Boswell is thought to be “the first” modern biographer. —He was a biographer + he was a modern biographer => the only claim made here is his primacy. => Use first as the reference. I hope this helps 
thanks! Appreciate the reply and I do understand where you are getting at, but, the question say first great modern biographer, so why can’t we focus on the great aspect?
Focusing on “great” doesn’t make sense with the fact that the sentence uses “yet”, setting up a contrast–any number of biographers can be great, but only one can be first.
