Parallelism (what can be dropped ?)

[faraz.ya]

Hi,
I have two questions about parallelism.
1) When is it appropriate to repeat the clause beginning (that, which, ....) in parallelism?

For example, the class video says that the clauses should repeat even when we have AND.I.e. which... and which (which should repeat). However, question 66 in the official book has the following:
"66) The .... which (CAN) grow to be 30 feet long and (IS) famous for its aggressive hunting pods. "
The word WHICH is not repeated here and the is and can are not a repeat either !

Also question 27 in the Manhattan 750 Quest says
"... ordered that that the construction be continued and the inland toll road opened to traffic."
That is not repeated in the second sentence.

Can somebody tell me what is the rule regarding the repetition of the clause indicator ?

Also, my instructor told me that we don't have to repeat the helper verbs in not only ... but also "not only have eaten but also taken" (we can drop the helper verb have) but the video says we can only drop the helper verb with AND not with the parallel with two part indicators.


Thanks,

[tim]

There is no rule that says whether the relative pronoun has to be repeated. Here is the real rule: look to the right of the parallel marker to see what the structure is. Does it have a relative pronoun or not? Either way, you need to see if you can find something on the left of the parallel marker that matches. If there is a relative pronoun immediately to the right of the parallel marker, you MUST have a relative pronoun introducing the phrase on the left. If there is no relative pronoun to the right, all you are looking for on the left is whatever type of word or phrase showed up on the right; in most cases, this will mean it is irrelevant whether the phrase on the left has a relative pronoun. To use an example:

"I have a dog that barks and that looks like a lion."
"that barks" is parallel to "that looks like a lion"

"I have a dog that barks and looks like a lion."
"barks" is parallel to "looks like a lion"

Of course, if there are TWO parts to the parallel marker, you need to look immediately to the right of BOTH of them to make sure the parallel elements are similar in structure. Thus you misheard your instructor, because what you mentioned is definitely NOT correct; the rule you quote from the video is correct:

"I have a dog that not only barks but also looks like a lion."
"barks" is parallel to "looks like a lion"

"I have a dog that not only barks but also that looks like a lion."
NOT CORRECT. The parallel marker "but also" introduces a phrase with a relative pronoun, but the "not only" is not followed by a relative pronoun. These are NOT parallel..

[lafs26]

Nice explanation though I have few more where I need some lightings :)

I was going through one sentence in MGMAT SC book in Parallelisn Strategy Chapter. It was like
Wrong : Ralph likes both THOSE WHO are popular and WHO are not
Right : Ralph likes both THOSE WHO are popular and THOSE WHO are not.
I agree to the fact that second one is right but I also see there is nothing wrong with the first one if we see the same sentence like this
Ralph likes both those WHO are popular and WHO are not.
I just want to know how we actually divide this sentence. Why can't this sentence be right
Ralph likes both those WHO are popular and WHO are not.
"those " can be common for both the relative clauses.

[Willy]

Nice explanation though I have few more where I need some lightings :)

I was going through one sentence in MGMAT SC book in Parallelisn Strategy Chapter. It was like
Wrong : Ralph likes both THOSE WHO are popular and WHO are not
Right : Ralph likes both THOSE WHO are popular and THOSE WHO are not.
I agree to the fact that second one is right but I also see there is nothing wrong with the first one if we see the same sentence like this
Ralph likes both those WHO are popular and WHO are not.
I just want to know how we actually divide this sentence. Why can't this sentence be right
Ralph likes both those WHO are popular and WHO are not.
"those " can be common for both the relative clauses.

First thing you need the same word (in the sense of function) after Both X ... And Y, here X, Y need to be in parallel.

Ralph likes both THOSE WHO are popular and WHO are not.

In the above sentence these two are different, hence no good.

Also, go from right to left when you are checking for parallelism. Here the parallel marker is AND that comes to the right of the sentence. After figuring out the parallel marker then decide what things are parallel.

Another thing, 'Those' can't be understood in the sentence as you have said.

[jlucero]

Willy hit the nail on the head here. Anytime you have two parallel markers, you are more limited to what you can make parallel. Both X and Y, requires X and Y to be parallel, while X and Y can have a little more leeway. If you took out the "both" you could get away with:

Ralph likes people who are popular and who are tall.

HOWEVER, this is a different trap where there is ambiguity on whether he likes two different types of people OR people who are two different things. To add clarity, we would distinguish as:

Ralph likes people who are popular and tall. (he likes people who are popular and tall)

Ralph likes people who are popular and people who are tall. (he likes people who are popular and he also likes people who are tall)

Ralph likes people who are popular and who are tall. (ambiguity here... the GMAT might allow this, but if given the preference chose a sentence with a clearer meaning)

[AkashV214]

"I have a dog that barks and looks like a lion."
"barks" is parallel to "looks like a lion"

Hi Tim,
I have a doubt in the above construction. Is there a possibility of meaning ambiguity ?

There might be 2 possibilities
1. I have a dog that (barks and looks) like a lion. [Conveying that the dog barks like a lion and looks like a lion.]
2. I have a dog that barks and [that] looks like a lion.

Thanks.

[esledge]

"I have a dog that barks and looks like a lion."
"barks" is parallel to "looks like a lion"

Hi Tim,
I have a doubt in the above construction. Is there a possibility of meaning ambiguity ?

There might be 2 possibilities
1. I have a dog that (barks and looks) like a lion. [Conveying that the dog barks like a lion and looks like a lion.]
2. I have a dog that barks and [that] looks like a lion.

Thanks.

Yes, I think there's possible ambiguity here (you have to know that lions don't bark to rule out interpretation #1--grammar alone doesn't do so). Outside of the GMAT, authors might just switch the order of the list to prevent the ambiguity: I have a dog that looks like a lion and barks.

On the GMAT, the ambiguity would most likely be resolved with the repetition of "that," (or the use of a closed parallelism marker--Tim used "not only...but also" in one of his examples to that effect). This is what you did to make interpretation #2 clear above.