S.C : Thelonious Monk, who was a jazz pianist

[RonPurewal]

but you did not mention why "both"should be omited meaningly.

...because there is no such reason.

for the purposes of this exam, "both X and Y" and "X and Y" are equivalent.

the difference is purely stylistic. "both" is included (1) if "X" and "Y" are long (= long enough to make the sentence difficult to read without "both"), or (2) for rhetorical reasons, such as emphasis.

style issues are not tested on this exam, so you only have to know that...
..."X and Y" is a legitimate parallel structure,
..."both X and Y" is also a legitimate parallel structure.
end of story.

[RonPurewal]

The sentence talks about where TM's work stemmed from, it is one topic, so “both” seems redundant.

nope. by this logic, "both X and Y" would always be redundant. that's not so.

this sentence could also be written as "...in the stride-piano tradition of both Willie (The Lion) Smith and Duke Ellington".
but... that's just not how they wrote it.

[gbyhats]

for the purposes of this exam, "both X and Y" and "X and Y" are equivalent.

I'm happy add that: "but you have to be careful about parallelism"

See Ron's post:
[Link]
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... bd0#p25465

--

"both...and..." is TWO-PART parallel signals, meaning elements inside "both...and..." have to be strictly parallel

[Correct]
He has friends both live in California and live in New York
[Correct]
He has friends live both in California and in New York
[Wrong]
He has friends both live in California and in New York

And that's also why we eliminate choice (A)

A violates parallelism: "both rooted ... and Duke Ellington"

--

while "...and..." is a ONE-PART parallel signals

when you have PARALLELISM WITH A ONE-PART SIGNAL, the only words that are "locked in" are the ones directly FOLLOWING the signal.
as long as you can find the corresponding structure in the other part, then the parallelism is fine.

examples:
i worked in nevada and florida.
i worked in nevada and in florida.

BOTH OF THESE ARE FINE.

[RonPurewal]

sorry, but, in that last post, what exactly are you asking?

[gbyhats]

sorry, but, in that last post, what exactly are you asking?

Oh sorry!

I have nothing to ask, just rambling: I wanted to share my understanding about the difference between "...and..." and "both...and..."

--

Your previous comments about the difference in meaning between "...and..." and "both...and..." reminds me of a grammar concepts you told us:

two-part parallel signals and one-part parallel signals

which is covered in a post you wrote

[Link]: https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... bd0#p25465

[RonPurewal]

I wanted to share my understanding about the difference between "...and..." and "both...and..."

in terms of meaning, there's no difference.

"both X and Y" is used mostly in two kinds of situations:

1/
"both X and Y" is used if "X" and "Y" are, individually, long.
in this case, the use of "both" helps to orient the reader.
WITHOUT "both", this kind of sentence can be extremely difficult to read.

2/
"both X and Y" is used for emphasis.
in this case, "both" is used simply because "both X and Y" makes a stronger point than just "X and Y".

[RonPurewal]

MOST IMPORTANTLY,
both of the above conditions are stylistic.
since style issues are never tested on the GMAT, [b]"X and Y" and "both X and Y" are identical for the purposes of this exam.

[RonPurewal]

incidentally, if "X and Y" is used to describe a relationship between X and Y, then "both" CANNOT be used.

if you want, you can just memorize this. the reason, though, is that "both X and Y" implies that both "X" and "Y" can be described individually by whatever the sentence says.

as a test, you can make 2 sentences, one using "X" individually and one using "Y" individually, and see whether those sentences make sense (and deliver the same meaning as the original). if you get nonsense by using "X" and/or "Y" individually, then "both X and Y" can't be used.

e.g.,

between X and Y ("between both X and Y" is incorrect)
note that "between X" and "between Y" are nonsense constructions.

X and Y are the same ("both X and Y are the same" is incorrect)
note that "X is the same" makes no sense.

X and Y share several traits ("both X and Y share..." is incorrect, unless you mean that each of them shares things with other, unnamed, entities)
note that "X shares..." doesn't make sense, unless the meaning of the sentence is fundamentally different from "X and Y share...".

[gbyhats]

Whoa! Thank you Ron, for these detailed replies!

incidentally, if "X and Y" is used to describe a relationship between X and Y, then "both" CANNOT be used.

if you want, you can just memorize this. the reason, though, is that "both X and Y" implies that both "X" and "Y" can be described individually by whatever the sentence says.

as a test, you can make 2 sentences, one using "X" individually and one using "Y" individually, and see whether those sentences make sense (and deliver the same meaning as the original). [b]if you get nonsense by using

You point makes a clear sense to me! Beautiful! I never know this before!

[RonPurewal]

excellent.

[RonPurewal]

incidentally, i've never thought about these things explicitly before, either.

this is the power of learning through experience (= absorbing examples rather than "rules", using those examples as a basis for future judgments, and adjusting that basis when necessary).
all of us know tons and tons of things for which we've never clearly articulated any "rules" (and, quite often, for which we can't articulate any such rules).

think about how you would judge sentences in your own native language. by "rules"? certainly not.

you should try to learn this stuff the same way. (when you're a novice, you'll inevitably have to learn some things as rules--but, as you go, you should try to replace any such rules with ready-made examples.)

[gbyhats]

this is the power of learning through experience (= absorbing examples rather than "rules", using those examples as a basis for future judgments, and adjusting that basis when necessary).

You told me the same idea day one when I made my first post in this forum

It's such a powerful way to approach SC questions. After I get rid of all those abstract grammar terminology, start to think about what is the function of the elements in question, and experiment them with sentence made by my own, I gain a lots of new insight into GMAT SC.

it's also a time saving strategy -- if I want to name every grammar error with particular terminology, I will either still be in my first round of reviewing GMAT SC (because it takes time), or give up studying GMAT (because it is frustrating to make such little progress)

[RonPurewal]

yep.

it goes deeper than that. imagine how long it would take you just to say a random sentence to a friend if you had to consciously construct the sentence according to explicit rules.
that would take ... a very, very long time.

[Meerak869]

Hello sir,

I still did not completely understand this idiom.

this is a special idiom. if you preface someone's name with a noun describing their occupation (or other word describing what that person does), WITHOUT 'A'/'AN', you DO NOT use a comma.

if there's an article, you DO use a comma.

if it's an adjective, you DO use a comma.

example:
Jazz pianist and composer Thelonious Monk ... --> correct
A jazz pianist and composer, Thelonious Monk ... --> correct
Creative and original, Thelonious Monk ... --> correct

please explain further.

[tim]

I'm really at a loss as to how this could be explained further. The rule is very clearly laid out in the section you quoted, as are several examples. Can you help us understand what more you need in order to understand the idiom?