A recent study has found amoxicillin

[RonPurewal]

What is “long” here ? is it a adverb ?

it works in the same way as 'usually' in this sentence:
Rachel, usually a very reserved person, was bursting with excitement yesterday.

as far as terminology—i have no idea what it would be called. you can call it whatever you want. call it a pink unicorn!
as long as you understand how it works and can use it in a sentence, you are fine.
terminology will not, and cannot, help you understand anything.

if you have to use big words, you don't understand what you're talking about.
--Douglas Osheroff, 1996 Nobel laureate in physics

examples are on your team. terminology is on the other team.
--Ron Purewal

[MARSHALLM603]

**EDIT** I read Ron's post http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/pos ... tly#p36200

and understand that I don't need 'that' in second part because it's not 'locked in' 2nd half of the parallel structure.

very good.

remember, folks -- if your parallel signal is a single word, such as "and" or "or", then you must verify parallelism from right to left. in such constructions, in which there is no signal marking off the left-hand part of the parallelism, it is impossible to tell where the left-hand part begins without considering the right-hand part first.

Dear Ron:

Sorry to open this thread again. I do have a question for Option D. I think Option D is not a good parallel structure,

"that amoxicillin, long a standard treatment for ear infections, is about as effective as newer, more expensive antibiotics and causes"

I believe that more expensive is modifying the newer, and this modifier is closely followed by and causes, which makes the sentence somewhat not a good parallel structure.

Will it be better to add a comma before and? Am I correct?

Thanks very much!

[HaomingL305]

Hi, experts.
I have a question about the option D.
I think "causes" is parallel with the part" is about as effective as newer" is it correct?
Should a comma be placed before "and"?

Thanks in advance!

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Yes, you're right - 'causes' and 'is' are parallel in answer D.

Given answer D is correct, logic tells us that it doesn't need any extra commas. When joining two items together with 'and' we generally don't need a comma.

[RAHULS852]

I would to add another reason for eliminating option C.

As per Ron's explanation about parallel structure with one part signal,
"the only words that are "locked in" are the ones directly FOLLOWING the signal.
as long as you can find the corresponding structure in the other part, then the parallelism is fine"

Now in this case the second part is starting with that "that it causes" ,so the first part should have a "that", but it is missing, so they are not parallel and we can eliminate.
Please correct my understanding if I am wrong.

no, you're correct. nicely done.

I have another question, in option A, what is the role of "as being" and why exactly it is not parallel with "causing".

Thanks in advance.

good find - actually, "being" and "causing" are perfectly parallel in this instance.

but (a) is not idiomatic: "found X as VERBing" is not idiomatically correct.

Hi Ron/ Manhattan Expert,

I am not able to understand highlighted portion.
I found 2 splits in option A :
1. Found X as being
2. missing parallelism between "has found ..... and causing..."

After reading Ron's explanation, I am confused now. Kindly help me to understand parallelism between "being and causing"

Regards,
Rahul Singh

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

After reading Ron's explanation, I am confused now. Kindly help me to understand parallelism between "being and causing"

These are two "-ing" words that could be parallel. For example: 'At the party Ron was being silly and causing all kinds of trouble.' When you're analyzing parallel structures, I'd encourage you to take note of the parallel marker word(s) (here: 'and'), the parallel elements (here: 'being' and 'causing') and the root phrase (here: 'At the party Ron was...').

I found 2 splits in option A :
1. Found X as being
2. missing parallelism between "has found ..... and causing..."

I'm not quite sure what you mean. We usually talk about "splits" as differences between answer choices. So, logically, a single answer cannot have splits on its own.

Perhaps you mean 'problems' with A. I agree with you about 1. As Ron discussed above, it's unidiomatic to say 'found X as being'. As for 2, I disagree; I think you've analyzed the parallel structure here incorrectly. The parallelism in A is between 'being' and 'causing'.

Remember that when we analyse a parallel structure with 'and', we often have more than one way of cutting up the sentence since 'and' doesn't tell us where the root phrase ends and the first element begins. It's important to apply the 'principle of charity' i.e. to take the most logical interpretation of the sentence to give it the best chance of being correct. If we do that and the sentence still doesn't make sense, then we know that there's a problem with it. If we followed your interpretation, then the sentence would be saying: A recent study has found amoxicillin....and causing fewer side effects. How could the recent study cause side effects? This really doesn't make sense.

[RAHULS852]

Thanks Sage for your explanation.

Now I got your point that I should check meaning of parallel structures also.( Study can't cause side effects)
Sorry for mentioning "Split". I should have mentioned "problem" instead of "split".
I will remember this word for next time.

Regards,
Rahul Singh

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Good to hear that. No need to quote the previous post when you reply.