Parallelism

[yo4561]

Hello MP!

Let's say that I have this made-up example:

The scientist was crazy and less firmly established than his colleagues.

Is the parallelism adjective to adjective---> "crazy" and "established"?

For parallelism... I am a bit confused on adjectives and adverbs appearing in front of the X and Y elements. Is it okay to have only one element in the parallel structure have an adjective or adverb in front of it (e.g. the child loved red balloons and ice cream ---> red modifies balloons but ice cream does not have any modifier)?

Thank you MP...lots of love as always.

[esledge]

First, please accept our apologies for the late response. A tech glitch hid this folder from all logged-in Manhattan Prep staff for the first quarter of the year, and I’m still digging through the backlog.

Hello MP!

Let's say that I have this made-up example:

The scientist was crazy and less firmly established than his colleagues.

Is the parallelism adjective to adjective---> "crazy" and "established"?

It helps to look at the rest of the sentence when you think about parallelism: not just the two elements, but how they both fit with the remainder of the sentence (the root phrase). You should be able to switch the order of the elements and still have the sentence make sense. If we switch the order of just the adjectives, here’s what we have:

The scientist was established and less firmly crazy than his colleagues.

This completely changes the sentence, because now we are comparing his craziness, while being absolute about how established he is. And "firmly" is an adverbial modifier of the wrong trait. This reveals that one parallel element has the comparison and the other doesn’t, so you have to include the comparison in one of the elements. The parallel elements are as numbered below:

The scientist was:
(1) crazy
(2) less firmly established than his colleagues

Structural parallelism: We still have parallel adjectives—it’s ok that one is modified by adverbs and is part of a comparison.
Logical parallelism: Both are descriptions of what the scientist was.

For parallelism... I am a bit confused on adjectives and adverbs appearing in front of the X and Y elements. Is it okay to have only one element in the parallel structure have an adjective or adverb in front of it (e.g. the child loved red balloons and ice cream ---> red modifies balloons but ice cream does not have any modifier)?

As this example shows, if one of the “extra” modifiers only applies to one of the parallel elements, one possible misinterpretation is that the modifier applies to every list item that follows. The usual fix is to put the only modified element last:

Ambiguous: The child loved red || balloons and ice cream. (Did the child love two red things?)
Ambiguous: The child loved || red balloons and ice cream.
Clear: The child loved || ice cream and red balloons.

The || marks the end of the root phrase, and the underlined parts are the parallel elements. The last example makes it clear that only the balloons are red, not the ice cream. You might notice that in this list, both “ice cream” and “red balloons” are “adjective noun” elements. But we know from logic that “ice” can’t also describe balloons (generally), so when it goes first in the list, it doesn’t create the same ambiguity that “red” can.

[JbhB682]

As this example shows, if one of the “extra” modifiers only applies to one of the parallel elements, one possible misinterpretation is that the modifier applies to every list item that follows. The usual fix is to put the only modified element last:

Ambiguous: The child loved red || balloons and ice cream. (Did the child love two red things?)
Ambiguous: The child loved || red balloons and ice cream.
Clear: The child loved || ice cream and red balloons.

The || marks the end of the root phrase, and the underlined parts are the parallel elements. The last example makes it clear that only the balloons are red, not the ice cream. You might notice that in this list, both “ice cream” and “red balloons” are “adjective noun” elements. But we know from logic that “ice” can’t also describe balloons (generally), so when it goes first in the list, it doesn’t create the same ambiguity that “red” can.

Hi Experts - if i understand per the above -- a sentence like this in ambigous

The child loves red balloons and ice cream.

Thats because there are multiple interepretations

interpretation 1) The child loves || (red balloons) and (ice cream)
interpretation 2) The child loves red || balloons and ice-cream

What about a sentence like this ?

I want no coffee or tea

I thought this sentence as well would be wrong as well because of 2 interpretations
interpretation 1) I want || (no coffee) or (tea)
interpretation 2) I want no || (coffee) or (tea)

[JbhB682]

^^ But , the above structure apparently is okay

OA : A, uses this structure in an offical question

https://gmatclub.com/forum/before-colet ... 05863.html

[Whit Garner]

^^ But , the above structure apparently is okay

OA : A, uses this structure in an offical question

https://gmatclub.com/forum/before-colet ... 05863.html

I think it is important to note that the original example in this thread was hypothetical, and Emily gave the strict formal rules for modifiers in lists. I'll argue that the GMAT doesn't necessarily follow the most strict version (particularly when thinking about what "might" be ambiguous).

More importantly, you're not going to be choosing the correct sentence in a vacuum - you'll be choosing the best of 5 choices. In the Colette example, there were no alternatives to the order of the list or the placement of the no/not, so that wasn't the issue being tested! It is critical that you always look at SC for what it is - you comparing the choices against one another!

[JbhB682]

Hi Whitney - thank you so much for responding !!

In the question - (A) vs (E) - the only difference is the placement of no


(A) ...no Jane Austens or Bronte Sisters
(E) .. no Jane Austens or no Bronte Sisters

I preferred (E)

In (A) - i thought had multiple interpretations

A - interpretation 1) (no Jane Austens) or (Bronte Sisters)
A - interpretation 2) no || Jane Austens or Bronte Sisters

[Whit Garner]

In the question - (A) vs (E) - the only difference is the placement of no

I believe that the difference between A and E is ALSO the form of the verb: was vs were. The incorrect "was" is what throws answer choice E firmly out of contention. I will still say that the GMAT wouldn't make you choose between repeating or not repeating the "no" here - there will be a more firm grammar rule that will win the day!