extremely tricky one

[eggpain24]

MGMAT:

Citing increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning by workers, and finding that the plans themselves are excessively complex, the authors of a recent study have found that most eligible American workers had not made the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans.


A.Citing increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning by workers, and finding that the plans themselves are excessively complex, the authors of a recent study have found that most eligible American workers had not made the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans.

B.Increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning on the part of workers, and excess complexity in the plans themselves have been explained by a recent study finding the majority of eligible American workers who do not make the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans.

C.Citing increasing worker mobility between companies, poor worker financial planning, and excessively complex plans themselves as possible explanations, a majority of American workers had failed to make the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans, a recent study has found.

D.The authors of a recent study, citing increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning by workers, and finding that the plans themselves are excessively complex, have found that most eligible American workers do not make the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans.

E.A recent study has found that most eligible American workers fail to make the maximum allowed contribution to their employer-offered retirement plans; among the explanations cited are increasing worker mobility between companies, poor financial planning on the workers' part, and excess complexity in the plans themselves.


The OA is E.

i just have some doubt about the OE given by manhattan.

choice a :

quote:
The three explanations are not written in parallel: the first two ("increasing worker mobility..." and "poor financial planning...") are noun phrases, while the third ("finding that...") is a modifier describing the study and/or its authors.



i spend quite a while to understand this explanation..quite confusing

If the "finding that" part is modifier(modify the subject or the study)

how can the previous two parallel elements connected by comma?

I supposed they should be connect by "and"


also,I also get stuck by the explanation given by E-gmat

that ：the three elements in A are not parallel

mobility，planning，finding are all nouns....why they are not parallel...



quite confused

hope experts can clarify my doubt

[eggpain24]

anyone can clarify??

[tim]

the first two things are things we are "citing". we cannot be "citing ... finding"

[eggpain24]

the first two things are things we are "citing". we cannot be "citing ... finding"

THX for your reply

I'm sorry for not making my point clear

and here is the issue

can we understand the "finding" here as a noun and "that" is intended to modify the finding

why should we interpret that "finding" and "citing" are parallel？

is it better for us to construe finding as noun， when finding appear in the form such as "a finding" or "findings"

[thulsy]

I remember Ron said "Parallelism is a beauty contest". Even if you construe finding as a noun, the original sentence is still inferior in terms of parallelism:
Citing:
1. increasing worker mobility between companies,
2. poor financial planning by workers,
and
3. finding that the plans themselves are excessively complex,

the first two items are in the form of: adj + noun + prep phrase
but the 3rd item is off, in the form of noun + that clause.
By contrast, the parallelism in the correct choice (E) is perfect.

Just my 2c.

[tim]

why should we interpret that "finding" and "citing" are parallel？

we shouldn't! that's the whole point; these things are not parallel. "finding" is parallel to one of the things we're citing, which means we are "citing...finding" which makes no sense. i guess i'm afraid i don't understand your question, because it seems to me i answered it already..

[eggpain24]

why should we interpret that "finding" and "citing" are parallel？

we shouldn't! that's the whole point; these things are not parallel. "finding" is parallel to one of the things we're citing, which means we are "citing...finding" which makes no sense. i guess i'm afraid i don't understand your question, because it seems to me i answered it already..

THX for all your reply, I deeply appreciate it ！

so， here is the issue

I just cannot understand the explanation given by the manhattan CAT

it said that "citing and finding seem to be parallel"

I understand they should not be parallel！！！！

but when I use the structure to determine the parallel elements

here seems that noun，noun， and finding that ..（to be parallel，though sub-optional ， but these three are all nouns！）

I just get stuck how can citing and finding be construed as a potential parallel form（given by the manhattan CAT explanation）？

is is just a potential ambiguity in choice A

I think that if citing and finding are parallel（just purely grammar），how can the preceding two nouns connected just by comma？is it that the ambiguous parallel too strict here？

I hope this time I am making my point crystally clear

[tim]

no, you are not clear, and it is because you are using words such as "should" and "seem" without a clear meaning of how you are using them. it sounds as though the MGMAT explanation is confusing you (and to some extent is guilty of using those ambiguous words itself), so let it go and instead analyze the parallelism on your own. if you do that, you will likely get it. if you don't get it, then write out your own analysis clearly and without referring to previous discussions and explanations and i'll be glad to help you sort through this some more..

[AndyH539]

Dear instructor,
Just to clarify, "citing the finding XXXX" is never idiomatic?

ex) In his new book, the author cited the finding that some animals live longer than humans to prove his theory.

As a non-native English speaker, it souded all right.

Thanks!
Andy