Florida’s Gainesville-Hawthorne State Trail

[haritha.ith]

Hi,
I eliminated answer choice B because i thought second clause did not have a subject.

Explanation from the problem:
"Since the pronoun it, referring to the trail, is the subject of the first clause, it is also by default the subject of the second; thus no subject is needed between yet and is."


How should i identify whether subject is implied or sentence is fragmented?

[RonPurewal]

Hi,
I eliminated answer choice B because i thought second clause did not have a subject.

Explanation from the problem:
"Since the pronoun it, referring to the trail, is the subject of the first clause, it is also by default the subject of the second; thus no subject is needed between yet and is."


How should i identify whether subject is implied or sentence is fragmented?

the construction "X verb1 and verb2" works if "X" makes sense as the subject of both verbs.

by the way, did you mean to say you eliminated (a), not (b)? the explanation you've given here seems to point in that direction.

[chenxil]

My apologies for bringing up an old topic, but I still had a slight confusion regarding this question.

I fully agree that subject verb1 AND verb2 works as a conjunction, but how can it work if it is separated by a comma? A comma inherently separates the sentence into two separate clauses, and when joining clauses, coordinating conjunctions should only be used to join independent clauses. I'm not sure how we can just assume that a subject remains when the clauses have been separated by a comma. Of course, omitting objects in parallel constructions is often done (e.g. "I eat ice-cream, just as you do") but I've definitely always been told that omitting subject is not something that the English construction allows.

For example, I would never say, "I ate ice-cream, and slept." "Slept" by itself cannot function as an independent clause and therefore should not be joined by and separated by a comma. Please clarify!

[jlucero]

My apologies for bringing up an old topic, but I still had a slight confusion regarding this question.

I fully agree that subject verb1 AND verb2 works as a conjunction, but how can it work if it is separated by a comma? A comma inherently separates the sentence into two separate clauses, and when joining clauses, coordinating conjunctions should only be used to join independent clauses. I'm not sure how we can just assume that a subject remains when the clauses have been separated by a comma. Of course, omitting objects in parallel constructions is often done (e.g. "I eat ice-cream, just as you do") but I've definitely always been told that omitting subject is not something that the English construction allows.

For example, I would never say, "I ate ice-cream, and slept." "Slept" by itself cannot function as an independent clause and therefore should not be joined by and separated by a comma. Please clarify!

I'll assume you are referring to the "yet" in this sentence. First major lesson is to learn that it is acceptable, but not in the simple version you used:

I ate ice cream and slept.

In this simple example, ate and slept are the only verbs and so there's no confusion about what should be parallel, so we don't want commas to confuse the issue. However, when you have a more complex structure:

I was eating ice cream while we were rafting and sleeping on the bed.

There are now several different possible things for "sleeping" to be parallel with- rafting or eating. Without a comma, sleeping goes back to the closest parallel item. I was eating ice cream while rafting/sleeping. If you include the comma:

I was eating ice cream while we were rafting, and sleeping on the bed.

Now sleeping can attach to a further parallel element. The number one take-away from this is that it is possible to include a comma between parallel elements. The reason why is to make a clearer sentence.

Second, with contradictory conjunctions, such as but, yet, etc., you often need a comma to offset phrases. (although not every writer will agree when to use the comma and when not to... fortunately, you don't need to worry about this on the GMAT)

The puppies were cute, but pooped everywhere.

Even though the subject isn't repeated here, it's completely understood what should be parallel.

[PhillyPhillie]

Hello,

This question drove me a bit batty initially. I can easily see why B through E are wrong:

B - "is" missing in the 'but also' phrase
C - 'not only' missing
D - 'not only' missing
E - no 'is' following the 'not only' parallel market, yet present after 'but also'

BUT, I thought that A was wrong because "not only completely man-made but also designed exclusively for..." were not parallel. Shouldn't it be 'completely man-made but also exclusively designed for..?

It was said earlier in the thread that the meaning would be changed in my latter proposed correction, but I do not see how...

I should have gotten this one right solely on elimination...

[tanwarkml]

Why is the past participle "classified" in option E wrong?
I think it correctly modifies "it" but the structure is not parallel

paradox: it is man-made [verb], yet classified [past participle]

Am I correct?

[RonPurewal]

In choice E, you need to look at what follows "not only" and what follows "but also".
not only completely man-made
but also is ... designed

One is just an adjective/modifier; the other is a verb. Not parallel.

[lsyang1212]

When can you use "but also" just by itself? Do you have to use it in a "not only X but also Y" construction?

Also, in answer choice A, "not only COMPLETELY... but also DESIGNED" is a "not only [adverb]... but also [verb]" construction. This is considered parallel?

I understand why all the other answer choices are wrong, but wanted to clarify A.

Thanks.

[jnelson0612]

When can you use "but also" just by itself? Do you have to use it in a "not only X but also Y" construction?

Also, in answer choice A, "not only COMPLETELY... but also DESIGNED" is a "not only [adverb]... but also [verb]" construction. This is considered parallel?

I understand why all the other answer choices are wrong, but wanted to clarify A.

Thanks.

Hi there,
That is a good question. Apparently there are uses of only "but also" in non-GMAT literature, but I can't imagine that you'll see this on the GMAT. If you see "but also", look for a "not only".

In this case, the trail is "not only man-made but also designed". These are both adjectives and are thus parallel.

[Krish101]

Should the "comma" before "yet" be removed in answer A?

[tim]

This is a perfect example of why it is so important to keep focus on what sentence correction is all about. The question you should be asking is whether the comma is wrong, not whether it needs to be removed. SC is NEVER about correcting anything (despite the name); it is ONLY about finding errors. Is the comma wrong? Absolutely! Should it be removed? No, the appropriate response to something that's wrong in SC is to get rid of the answer and never think about it again! Don't waste your time trying to figure out how to fix SC answer choices; this is a skill you will not need on the GMAT, and in most cases (including this one) fixing an error doesn't make the answer choice correct anyway.

[Maxmerkovitz]

Florida’s Gainesville-Hawthorne State Trail, a mixed-use recreation trail paved over an old rail bed, is a curious paradox: it is not only completely man-made but also designed exclusively for human use, yet is classified as a state park.
a - is not only completely man-made but also designed exclusively for human use, yet is
b - not only is completely man-made but also exclusively designed for human use, yet it is
c - is completely man-made but also exclusively designed for human use, yet
d - is completely man-made but also has been designed exclusively for human use, yet is
e - is not only completely man-made but also is exclusively designed for human use, yet

I'm a little confused by the explanation for why e is wrong:

(E) Write the two parallel portions as separate sentences. It is completely man-made (following not only) is acceptable, but it exclusively designed for human use (following but also) is missing a verb! It should read it is exclusively designed. The lack of a verb after yet creates an ambiguity in parallelism: it is unclear whether classified as a state park is parallel to the entire first clause (as intended) or only to exclusively designed.

I was under the impression for a closed parallel marker such as not only... but also... a verb outside of the parallel marker cannot apply to the parallel items. While I can see that E is not parallel regardless (the first part does not have is, but the second part does), when the explanation says the second parallel item reads "it exclusively designed" I don't understand why it cut out the "is" that is included.

Also, to my initial point of confusion, how can the is outside the closed parallel marker apply to the different parallel items?

Thanks for your help,
Max

[sahilmalhotra01]

Hi Expert,

I understood the explanation for the question except the following part:

the construction not only … but also is used for two ideas that reinforce one another, while the lone but also (used without not only) is used for two contrasting ideas


I am not able to understand ideas that reinforce each other and that contrast each other.

Can you clarify this part with the help of some examples,

where the usage not only ....but also is correct

and

where the usage ....but also is correct

Thanks

[littleb417]

Choice D uses "but also" alone.
May I understand the usage of "but also" alone?

I understand "not only..but also" and "not only ...but "

both mean reinforcement

while "not...but.." means contradiction

BUT I've never seen how "but also" alone is used in GMAT

Is "but also" alone exists?

dear expert pls help

[cgentry]

Choice D uses "but also" alone.
May I understand the usage of "but also" alone?

I understand "not only..but also" and "not only ...but "

both mean reinforcement

while "not...but.." means contradiction

BUT I've never seen how "but also" alone is used in GMAT

Is "but also" alone exists?

dear expert pls help

I've never seen, and don't believe it's possible to create, a sentence that uses a "but also" outside of the "not only... but also" idiom. A "but" is a contradiction; "also" supplements or corroborates the previous element.

Not only...but also works because the "not" and the "but" counteract each other in the same way that a negative times a negative create a positive. So you can follow the "but" with "also" because you're merely continuing the positive corroboration.

Absent an earlier 'not', a plain 'but also' doesn't make sense.