Lesson: Parallelism - Part IV

Comment on Parallelism - Part IV

Wow great explanation , i loved the break down. I have been going through your videos. Great Job, thank you.
gmat-admin's picture

Thanks for the kind words!

Dr H contends that individuals .....
....... will respond negatively under stressful conditions ......., and that these individuals will benefit

my question is , can we write
......., and will benefit
making 'will respond' and 'will benefit' parallel

i can sense that my explanation is wrong ...but it is not clear in my head ...can you please help
gmat-admin's picture

Tough one.

If we write "...and will benefit...", I think it's unclear who or what will benefit. There are just too many words in between "will respond" and "will benefit" to be able to see the parallelism.

Hi I am sorry I have a similar question here,
Dr.H contends that individuals who have experienced emotional trauma in a hospital setting and witnessed others in similar circumstances…. here before ‘witnessed’

1.can I change it to be ‘have witnessed’ to make it parallel to ‘have experienced’?
2. Or can I just not insert anything before ‘witnessed’ to make ‘witnessed’ parallel to ‘experienced’?

I am not sure where in the sentence I should start the parallelism….

Thank you very much!
gmat-admin's picture

If we say "People have experienced trauma and witnessed others," then there are two different tenses at play.

The present perfect tense, "have experienced," suggests that the experiencing has occurred in the past AND may continue into the present and future

The simple past tense, "witnessed," suggests that the witnessing occurred in the past.

If the experiencing and the witnessing have both occurred in the past AND may continue into the present and future, then we need HAVE in front of "experienced" and "witnessed".

Hi Brent, first you are awesome.
2nd, if we didn't replace "they" with "these individuals". will the sentence remain correct?
gmat-admin's picture

Some will argue that, since we have the structure "Dr. Higgins contents THAT individuals . . . . and THAT they . . .", then it's obvious that "they" refers to those individuals.

Others will argue that, since there are SO MANY words preceding "they" that "they" could be referring to "others," "circumstances," "conditions" or "levels"

It's hard to say what the official test-makers would think of this sentence. However, I think it's usually a safe bet to always try to avoid any potential for ambiguity.

Pls help me with the following question:

During the rule of Emperor Claudius, which was known for his military expeditions against the German tribes of the Chauci and Catti, the population of ancient Rome exceeded any city in the Roman Empire.

a)which was known for his military expeditions against the German tribes of the Chauci and Catti, the population of ancient Rome exceeded any

b)known for his military expeditions against the German tribes of the Chauci and Catti, the population of ancient Rome was exceeded by no other

c)known for his military expeditions against the German tribes of the Chauci and Catti, the population of ancient Rome exceeded that of any

d)known for his military expeditions against the German tribes of the Chauci and Catti, ancient Rome exceeded any

e)known for his military expeditions against the German tribes of the Chauci and Catti, the population of ancient Rome exceeded that of any other

While I understand the parallelism error in the question and that Options C & E address that error; I want to understand the structure of the resulting sentence.

During the rule of Emperor Claudius, --> Prepositional Phrase, --> How do we explain the role of , here as the connector?

known for his military expeditions against the German tribes of the Chauci and Catti, --> known for ..., --> What will we call the phrase starting with known? What part of speech will be known?

the population of ancient Rome exceeded that of any other city in the Roman Empire. --> Noun Phrase
gmat-admin's picture

The phrase "known for his military expeditions against the German tribes of the Chauci and Catti" is a participial phrase that tells us more about Emperor Claudius.

The commas separate this non-vital modifier from the rest of the sentence. For more on non-vital modifiers, see: https://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-sentence-correction/video/1166

Also, notice that we could have also placed the participial phrase first and offset it with brackets, as in:

"Known for his military expeditions against the German tribes of the Chauci and Catti, Emperor Claudius..."

The last part of the sentence ("...the population of ancient Rome exceeded that of any other city in the Roman Empire.") is an independent clause (the subject is POPULATION and the verb is EXCEEDED).

Does that help?

Cheers,
Brent

at 3:51 shouldn't it be "low blood sugar level" instead of levels ??
gmat-admin's picture

I could be either; it depends on how many times the blood sugar was measured.
If we measured the blood sugar 4 times and the measurements were 4.5, 3.9, 4.3 and 3.8, then we'd have to say LEVELS.

According to some analysts, the gains in the stock market reflect growing confidence that the economy will avoid the recession that many had feared earlier in the year and instead come in for a “soft landing,” followed by a gradual increase in business activity.

(A) that the economy will avoid the recession that many had feared earlier in the year and instead come
(B) in the economy to avoid the recession, what many feared earlier in the year, rather to come
(C) in the economy’s ability to avoid the recession, something earlier in the year many had feared,
and instead to come
(D) in the economy to avoid the recession many were fearing earlier in the year, and rather to come
(E) that the economy will avoid the recession that was feared earlier this year by many, with it instead coming
sir here i rejected b,c,d because "in the" changes meaning and rejected E becuase its not clear whether "it" here is ressestion or economy
is this correct reasoning sir?
gmat-admin's picture

The phrase IN THE is not necessarily wrong.
For example, it's grammatically correct to say "Joe has confidence IN THE economy."

Here's a nice analysis of the question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/according-to-some-analysts-the-gains-in-the-s...

Cheers,
Brent

Could you help me solve this one? I don't understand the parallelism in this. https://gmatclub.com/forum/while-some-propose-to-combat-widespread-illegal-copying-of-computer-151395.html

Thanks
Aman
gmat-admin's picture

Question link: https://gmatclub.com/forum/while-some-propose-to-combat-widespread-illeg...

Tough question!

Here's the correct answer (E):
While SOME PROPOSE to combat widespread illegal copying of computer programs by attempting to change people's attitudes toward pirating, OTHERS SUGGEST reducing software prices to decrease the incentive for pirating, and still OTHERS ARE CALLING for the prosecution of those who copy software illegally.

When we ignore the "fluff", we get: While SOME PROPOSE, OTHERS SUGGEST, and still OTHERS ARE CALLING."

In general, we have: While NOUN+VERB, NOUN+VERB, and still NOUN+VERB."

For more on ignoring the fluff, see: https://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-sentence-correction/video/1158

Does that help?

Cheers,
Brent

Brent,

I really appreciate the amount of hard work you took for preparation of thses videos.

Thank you

God bless you.
gmat-admin's picture

Thanks!

Hey Brent,

regarding the exeptions of parallelism you mentioned in earlier videos (sundae with peanuts or without): Isn´t it possible to apply an exeption here? "...who have experie3ncesd trauma and (have) witnessed others...". Isn´t it clear that have is the word missing, and thus can be omitted? That sometimes confuses me.

Thanks for the help,

Philipp
gmat-admin's picture

If we drop the 2nd HAVE (and write "People HAVE EXPERIENCED trauma and WITNESSED others," then we now have two different tenses at play.

The present perfect tense (HAVE EXPERIENCED_ suggests that the experiencing has occurred in the past AND may continue into the present and future

The simple past tense, WITNESSED suggests that the witnessing occurred in the past and is a COMPLETED action.

If the experiencing and the witnessing have both occurred in the past AND may continue into the present and future, then we need HAVE in front of both "experienced" and "witnessed".

Does that help?

Cheers,
Brent

So can we conclude that verb tenses are generally not taken as a common entity? In other words they HAVE TO be repeated in the parallel list?
gmat-admin's picture

I'd say it depends on the distance between the verbs.

In the sentence, "I have jumped and walked," it's clear that both verbs are meant to be in the present perfect form.
However, once you place more than word in between, it's certainly less clear, in which case you should add a second HAVE.

When in doubt, add what you need to avoid ambiguity.

Hi Brent,

I answered D instead of E. Then I thought diligently why D is incorrect. Here is what I came up with. Could you just check whether I correctly identified the problem with D, and If not, what is the problem with my reasoning?

D:The relative prosperity of the first years of the twentieth century came to a halt in 1907 when drains on the money supply revealed both a weak national financial infrastructure of banking and credit and precipitating an economic crisis that lasted nearly a year.

Here we have STEM: drains on the money supply revealed both:
• a weak national financial infrastructure of
banking and credit
• precipitating an economic crisis that lasted
nearly a year.

The parts are not parallel
Even if we fix the parallelism the meaning will be still wrong.

FIX_PARALLELISM: Here we have STEM: drains on the money supply revealed both:
• a weak national financial infrastructure of
banking and credit
• Precipitation of an economic crisis that lasted
nearly a year(we don't know what precipitated the
crises, we just know that "drains on the money
supply" revealed this precipitation. The intended
meaning is the "drain on the money" caused
precipitation of an economic crisis.
gmat-admin's picture

Question link: https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-relative-prosperity-of-the-first-years-of...

(D) The relative prosperity of the first years of the twentieth century came to a halt in 1907 when drains on the money supply revealed both a weak national financial infrastructure of banking and credit and precipitating an economic crisis that lasted nearly a year.

By using the word BOTH, this sentence suggests that the drains (on the money supply) REVEALED two things:
1) a weak national financial infrastructure of banking and credit
2) an economic crisis that lasted nearly a year.

#2 doesn't make any sense in the context of the sentence.
The drains (on the money supply) did not REVEAL an economic crisis that lasted nearly a year.

Instead, the drains (on the money supply) PRECIPITATED an economic crisis that lasted nearly a year.

So, as it stands, we cannot use the word BOTH, since it suggests that two things were REVEALED.

Instead, we need to say that the DRAINS (on the money supply) did two things:
1) REVEALED a weak national financial infrastructure
2) PRECIPITATED an economic crisis

For this reason answer choice E is the best

Cheers,
Brent

Hi Brent,

Makes sense,

Thank you for your time,

I have a question regarding this relative clause “That individuals who have experiences emotional trauma in a hospital setting”

I see that and who are used here does it means there are two relative clauses here that individuals and who have.... or is it just one relative clause. Please assist. Thanks.
gmat-admin's picture

Hi zakki,

Technically-speaking, we have a relative clause within another relative clause.

The clause "THAT individuals who have experiences emotional trauma in a hospital setting... benefit from hypnotherapy" is a relative clause modifying CONTENDS (it answers the question "What did Dr. Higgins contend?")

Nested within that relative clause, the relative clause "WHO have experienced emotional trauma in a hospital setting and witnessed others in similar circumstances" modifies INDIVIDUALS.

Does that help?

Thanks Brent. That helps. I just went through the SC modules today and they were really helpful.

Cheer.s
gmat-admin's picture

Glad to hear it!

In the previous video we learned that "to" can be kept common OR it can be repeated for EVERY element in the parallel list

In this question can't "by" be kept as a common word? thus by insufficient sleep and (by) low blood pressure is parallel.

Similarly...
Can't we have "Dr. Higgins contends that" as a common entity while the two ICs "individuals will respond..." and "they will benefit" parallel (correctly connected by ,and"

In parallelism I often get confused as to what CAN and CANNOT be taken as a common entity. How do I deal with this issue?
gmat-admin's picture

Great questions.

BY is a preposition. So, "BY insufficient sleep" is a prepositional phrase, which means we must use BY + low blood pressure to maintain parallelism (as far as the GMAT is concerned).

Likewise if we have a relative clause beginning with THAT, but then any other relative clauses in the sentence must begin with THAT.

These concepts are discussed at 0:58 of the following video: https://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-sentence-correction/video/1169

Tweet about the course!

If you're enjoying this GMAT video course, help spread the word on Twitter.

Change Playback Speed

You have the option of watching the videos at various speeds (25% faster, 50% faster, etc). To change the playback speed, click the settings icon on the right side of the video status bar.

Have a question about this video?

Post your question in the Comment section below, and a GMAT expert will answer it as fast as humanly possible.

Free “Question of the Day” emails!