Hi Experts, Need your help on this one

[saurabhkamal1981]

Hi Experts,

I know i am asking a very silly question, but seriously i want to clear my doubt on this one.

The following sentence is from chapter no. 4 and on page no. 60 of SC-4th edition.

15. Dr. Crock's claims have been not corroborated by other scientists or published in a prestigious journal but have nonetheless garnered a great deal of attention from public.

Answer is on page no. 61:-

Dr. Crock's claims have not been corroborated by other scientists or published in a prestigious journal but have nonetheless garnered a great deal of attention from public.


The right parallel structure is Not X but Y, but in this sentence the structure is different. It says:-

have not been corroborated but have nonetheless
not X but Y

X and Y should be parallel. So, i believe sentence should be:-

Dr. Crock's claims not have been corroborated by other scientists or published in a prestigious journal but have nonetheless garnered a great deal of attention from public.

Please correct me if i am wrong.

I will be waiting for your reply.

Thanks & Regards
Saurabh Kamal
saurabhkamal2003@yahoo.com

[hitesh.the.game]

Great question!

I am also interested in an explanation for this. Someone please reply.

[dmitryknowsbest]

Hi Saurabh,

You ask an interesting question (not a silly one), but the answer is that the correction on pg. 61 is accurate.

To begin with, the parallel verb in both clauses is "have," so beginning with "have" both times is essential.

Another example:

I have been to Paris, but I have not eaten snails.

Additionally, the word "not" never precedes the main verb. We say "I have not," "I do not," etc., and never "I not have" or "I not do." If not precedes these words, it is because it is modifying a preceding verb:

I do not have time to eat lunch.
I do not do yoga.

The "not x but y" structure you mentioned is used in many contexts, but is not generally used to compare main verbs. Here are a few examples:

The drug is not helpful, but harmful.

It's not what you say, but what you do that matters.
(Note that here "not" precedes "what," which is a pronoun.)

The best course of action is not to wait for someone else to make a change, but to make that change yourself.
(Note that "not" can precede an infinitive. The main verb here is "is," and the infinitives are used to describe two contrasting courses of action.)

[saurabhkamal1981]

Hi Saurabh,

You ask an interesting question (not a silly one), but the answer is that the correction on pg. 61 is accurate.

To begin with, the parallel verb in both clauses is "have," so beginning with "have" both times is essential.

Another example:

I have been to Paris, but I have not eaten snails.

Additionally, the word "not" never precedes the main verb. We say "I have not," "I do not," etc., and never "I not have" or "I not do." If not precedes these words, it is because it is modifying a preceding verb:

I do not have time to eat lunch.
I do not do yoga.

The "not x but y" structure you mentioned is used in many contexts, but is not generally used to compare main verbs. Here are a few examples:

The drug is not helpful, but harmful.

It's not what you say, but what you do that matters.
(Note that here "not" precedes "what," which is a pronoun.)

The best course of action is not to wait for someone else to make a change, but to make that change yourself.
(Note that "not" can precede an infinitive. The main verb here is "is," and the infinitives are used to describe two contrasting courses of action.)

Hi Dmitry,

Thank you so much. Your explanation has cleared my doubt, but if this is the case then my question was definitely not silly. Sometimes these small things become so important that you cannot ignore them.
Anyway thank you so much once again. I really appreciate for your help.

Thanks & Regards
Saurabh

[jnelson0612]

Thank you everyone!

[santhosh.iipm]

Dr. Crock's claims have not been corroborated by other scientists or published in a prestigious journal but have nonetheless garnered a great deal of attention from public.

I have broken the sentence into 3 parts to check the structure of parallelism.

Dr. Crock's claims have not been corroborated by other scientists

Dr. Crock's claims have not been Published in a prestigious Journal

Dr. Crock's claims have nonetheless garnered a great deal of attention from public.

Is all the above structures correct?

[jnelson0612]

They are indeed all correct! :-)

[mcmebk]

Would it be acceptable to say:

Dr. Crock's claims have been not corroborated by other scientists or published in a prestigious journal but nonetheless garnered a great deal of attention from the public.

So here "Corroborated" is parallel to "Published" via "Or";

and "Corroborated" is parallel to "gained" via "But Nonetheless".

Thank you for your help.

[tim]

no. first, the "not" applies to "have been corroborated", so it needs to be parallel to "have garnered". second, regardless of what happens later in the sentence you need to say "have not been" rather than "have been not"..

[rte.sushil]

Dr. Crock's claims have been not corroborated by other scientists or published in a prestigious journal but have nonetheless garnered a great deal of attention from public.


I think the sentence can also be:
//change tenses

Dr. Crock's claims were not corroborated by other scientists or published in a prestigious journal , but have nonetheless garnered a great deal of attention from public.


Dr. Crock's claims are not corroborated by other scientists or published in a prestigious journal , but have nonetheless garnered a great deal of attention from public.


Are both above version correct? Any Expert advise?

[jnelson0612]

Dr. Crock's claims have been not corroborated by other scientists or published in a prestigious journal but have nonetheless garnered a great deal of attention from public.


I think the sentence can also be:
//change tenses

Dr. Crock's claims were not corroborated by other scientists or published in a prestigious journal , but have nonetheless garnered a great deal of attention from public.


Dr. Crock's claims are not corroborated by other scientists or published in a prestigious journal , but have nonetheless garnered a great deal of attention from public.


Are both above version correct? Any Expert advise?

Hi sushil,
Please go back and read Dmitry's post. He addresses this exact issue. You have some parallelism at play here that must be respected.

[keenys]

To begin with, the parallel verb in both clauses is "have," so beginning with "have" both times is essential.

Another example:

I have been to Paris, but I have not eaten snails.

Additionally, the word "not" never precedes the main verb. We say "I have not," "I do not," etc., and never "I not have" or "I not do." If not precedes these words, it is because it is modifying a preceding verb:

I do not have time to eat lunch.
I do not do yoga.

The "not x but y" structure you mentioned is used in many contexts, but is not generally used to compare main verbs. Here are a few examples:

The drug is not helpful, but harmful.

Hi Dimitry and other instructors,

If I compare the two examples you have given above:

a) I have been to Paris, but I have not eaten snails.
b) The drug is not helpful, but harmful.

In sentence a) you have repeated the verb "have" after but. However, in sentence b) you have not repeated the verb "is" after but.

Is it fine to write sentence a) without repeating "have" after but?

Another example on page 58 of Manhattan SC book:

Incorrect Version - She argues that the agency acts with disregard for human life AND property AND reckless abandon AND it should therefore be shut down.

Correct Version - She argues THAT the agency acts WITH reckless abandon AND WITH disregard for human life AND property, AND THAT it should therefore be shutdown.

Can the correct version be stated without the second "that" after AND? Why is second "that" required?

What is the general rule for repeating verbs and subordinators?


Please explain.

[jlucero]

Hi Dimitry and other instructors,

If I compare the two examples you have given above:

a) I have been to Paris, but I have not eaten snails.
b) The drug is not helpful, but harmful.

In sentence a) you have repeated the verb "have" after but. However, in sentence b) you have not repeated the verb "is" after but.

Is it fine to write sentence a) without repeating "have" after but?

No. In (a) you are comparing two different clauses- a noun with a verb. You need to repeat the verb in this case to avoid a misunderstanding. If you were comparing just the nouns, then you wouldn't need to repeat the verb.

OK: I have been to Paris, but I have not been to Madrid.
OK: I have been to Paris, but not to Madrid.
NOT OK: I have been to Paris, but not eaten snails.

Notice how that last example seems to compare Paris to eaten snails. That's why we repeat the verb "have".

In example (b), we are comparing two descriptive things about the drug, so we don't need to repeat the verb.

Another example on page 58 of Manhattan SC book:

Incorrect Version - She argues that the agency acts with disregard for human life AND property AND reckless abandon AND it should therefore be shut down.

Correct Version - She argues THAT the agency acts WITH reckless abandon AND WITH disregard for human life AND property, AND THAT it should therefore be shutdown.

Can the correct version be stated without the second "that" after AND? Why is second "that" required?

What is the general rule for repeating verbs and subordinators?


Please explain.

This is a bit of a grey area. You could probably find lots of examples in writing that wouldn't include the word "that" in a similar situation, but in this example the GMAT would almost definitely prefer to include it. In general, we don't use commas to connect two ideas and we don't need to repeat words like "that" in a list of two things. But when the sentence gets long and includes lists within lists (3 uses of the word AND), including a comma and "that" allows the intended meaning to be understood much more easily. Would it be wrong to skip out on the comma or the word that? Not necessarily. But by including them both, the intended meaning of the sentence is much easier to see. And given a choice between two answer choices, one of which I see immediately, the other of which I struggle to try to determine, I would always choose the sentence with clear meaning.

[keenys]

Hi Dimitry and other instructors,

If I compare the two examples you have given above:

a) I have been to Paris, but I have not eaten snails.
b) The drug is not helpful, but harmful.

In sentence a) you have repeated the verb "have" after but. However, in sentence b) you have not repeated the verb "is" after but.

Is it fine to write sentence a) without repeating "have" after but?

No. In (a) you are comparing two different clauses- a noun with a verb. You need to repeat the verb in this case to avoid a misunderstanding. If you were comparing just the nouns, then you wouldn't need to repeat the verb.

OK: I have been to Paris, but I have not been to Madrid.
OK: I have been to Paris, but not to Madrid.
NOT OK: I have been to Paris, but not eaten snails.

Notice how that last example seems to compare Paris to eaten snails. That's why we repeat the verb "have".

In example (b), we are comparing two descriptive things about the drug, so we don't need to repeat the verb.

Another example on page 58 of Manhattan SC book:

Incorrect Version - She argues that the agency acts with disregard for human life AND property AND reckless abandon AND it should therefore be shut down.

Correct Version - She argues THAT the agency acts WITH reckless abandon AND WITH disregard for human life AND property, AND THAT it should therefore be shutdown.

Can the correct version be stated without the second "that" after AND? Why is second "that" required?

What is the general rule for repeating verbs and subordinators?


Please explain.

This is a bit of a grey area. You could probably find lots of examples in writing that wouldn't include the word "that" in a similar situation, but in this example the GMAT would almost definitely prefer to include it. In general, we don't use commas to connect two ideas and we don't need to repeat words like "that" in a list of two things. But when the sentence gets long and includes lists within lists (3 uses of the word AND), including a comma and "that" allows the intended meaning to be understood much more easily. Would it be wrong to skip out on the comma or the word that? Not necessarily. But by including them both, the intended meaning of the sentence is much easier to see. And given a choice between two answer choices, one of which I see immediately, the other of which I struggle to try to determine, I would always choose the sentence with clear meaning.

Thank you Joe for the detailed explanation. It certainly helped.

[jlucero]

Glad to hear it.