Sentence Correction Question from the GMAT Prep:

[Feelaliveisa]

Hi,Ron

Can you tell me the difference between "whether" and "whether or not" in application.

Thanks in advance
Feelaliveisa

"whether or not" is redundant, and is thus unacceptable in formal english.

Thanks a lot,Ron.Wish you good luck.^-<~
Feelaliveisa

[RonPurewal]

Hi,Ron

Can you tell me the difference between "whether" and "whether or not" in application.

Thanks in advance
Feelaliveisa

"whether or not" is redundant, and is thus unacceptable in formal english.

Thanks a lot,Ron.Wish you good luck.^-<~
Feelaliveisa

You're welcome.

[HanzZ]

Hi Ron,
isn't verb 'is' required after than to make the 2 half parallel?

no.
it's not wrong to insert a helping verb there, but such a verb is only necessary if the sentence is ambiguous without it.

for instance:
i have played hockey longer than my brother.
--> this sentence is perfectly fine, as there is no ambiguity -- there is only one thing that the sentence can possibly mean.
i have played hockey longer than my brother has.
i have played hockey longer than has my brother.
--> these are both fine as well, although the extra helping verb is unnecessary.

BUT
i have known sarah longer than tom.
--> this sentence is incorrect, because it's ambiguous. it's impossible to tell which is the intended meaning between (1) i know both sarah and tom, but i met sarah before i met tom, or (2) both tom and i know sarah, but i met sarah before tom did.
in this instance, we need some extra element that will resolve the ambiguity (e.g., i have known sarah longer than tom has).

Hello Ron,

In your second example above, what would you say if you want to convey the first meaning, namely, 'I know both sarah and tom'?

-I have known sarah longer than I have known tom? Can we say 'I have known sarah longer than have tom'? Is there any other simpler way to say it?

Thanks for your reply.

Henry

[RonPurewal]

In your second example above, what would you say if you want to convey the first meaning, namely, 'I know both sarah and tom'?

-I have known sarah longer than I have known tom? Can we say 'I have known sarah longer than have tom'? Is there any other simpler way to say it?

Thanks for your reply.

Henry

not so much, unless you start changing bigger elements, e.g., I have been acquainted with Sarah longer than with Tom.

if you keep the "known" thing, i don't see any way to make it more concise.

MOST IMPORTANTLY
you don't have to think about doing this! the problems are multiple-choice!
there's zero value in learning to "edit" or "fix" these sentences, because ... you won't have to do that on the test. (in fact, there could very well be negative value, because your "edited" version of the sentence usually won't be the version that actually shows up as the correct answer.)

[HanzZ]

In your second example above, what would you say if you want to convey the first meaning, namely, 'I know both sarah and tom'?

-I have known sarah longer than I have known tom? Can we say 'I have known sarah longer than have tom'? Is there any other simpler way to say it?

Thanks for your reply.

Henry

not so much, unless you start changing bigger elements, e.g., I have been acquainted with Sarah longer than with Tom.

if you keep the "known" thing, i don't see any way to make it more concise.

MOST IMPORTANTLY
you don't have to think about doing this! the problems are multiple-choice!
there's zero value in learning to "edit" or "fix" these sentences, because ... you won't have to do that on the test. (in fact, there could very well be negative value, because your "edited" version of the sentence usually won't be the version that actually shows up as the correct answer.)

---
Hello Ron,

Thank you very much for your kind reply. I have another question on parallelism if you don't mind.

Basically, I am wondering whether the little word, 'that', is mandatory in the correct choice.

After reading several posts on parallelism, I got the impression (please correct me if it's wrong) that if similar elements on the left hand side of the parallelism marker can be found on the right hand side, then the parallelism works. AND it's not necessary to have everything the right hand side has on the left hand side?

The reason I really want to ask this is that I have seen seveal questions (another example is below) in similar nature but failed to identify the patern/usage with 'that'. So I am wondering, even though the right hand side has 'that', is it ok not to have it on the left hand side? Mechanically I think it's still parallel.

Here is another official sentence from prep:

The bones of Majungatholus atopus, a meat-eating dinosaur that is a distant relative of Tyrannosaurus rex and THAT closely resembles South American predatory dinosaurs, have been discovered in Madagascar.

Similarily, is it ok to put a 'that' in the sentence as bolded above? (The original/correct sentence doens't have 'that' there)

Thanks a MILLION if my above question could be addressed by you or any expert.

[RonPurewal]

I suspect that you're confusing the words "left" and "right".
Concept check:
A, B
Here, A is to the left of B. B is to the right of A.

If this confuses you, just use the words "before" and "after". Much easier.

--

Here's how this works:
"And" is the parallel marker. The stuff after "and" must be included in the structure.
Then, go to the left (before the marker), and see whether you have stuff that matches it.

E.g.,
Victor has lived in California and Nevada
Victor has lived in California and in Nevada
Both fine.

The same is true with your examples with "that". The version without the second "that" is like the first sentence above; the version with 2 "that"s is like the second one.

[thanghnvn]

Ron, pls, consider the following.

I thing the reason for which D and E are wrong is not that they change the original meaning.

the reason for which D and E are wrong is that

if "determine" means "discover" , it has to be used with the pattern

determine whether/why/what

if "determine" means " decide" , it has to be use with the pattern

determine that ...

the meaning inhere is, absolutely, "discover" and, so, we have to use the pattern "determined whether"

the oxford dictionary show the above patterns.

please, confirm my thinking. Thank you

[RonPurewal]

Nope. Either construction can be used with either meaning.

We've been telling you this for years now (you—thanghnvn—specifically, not just "random forum readers"): Do not try to memorize large-scale patterns.
That's not how SC works, nor is it how language works in general. It won't bring success.

[RonPurewal]

Here's an extremely helpful tip: Before posting hypotheses about whether some construction is correct/incorrect, try to create your own examples. In many cases, you'll be able to disprove your own hypothesis quite easily!

Here are some examples.

Determine = decide with logical deduction:

• Before performing emergency surgery, doctors must determine whether that surgery would actually be likely to save the patient's life.

• Having determined that the surgery would be extremely unlikely to save the patient's life, the doctors chose not to perform it and instead to operate on another patient with better prospects of survival.


Determine = discover / figure out from observations, evidence, and/or data:

• From the brushstrokes in an oil painting, Anne can usually determine whether it was painted by a left- or a right-handed artist.

• From the brushstrokes in this oil painting, Anne determined that it was painted by a left-handed artist.

[JustinCKN]

hi instructor,

I don't question the correct answer C. I am just curious about why the 'present tense' in choice C works.


Ron has said that 'for general true' we can use present tense,
ancient cavemen were unaware that the earth revolves around the sun --> correct.

， but C. that more research was needed to determine whether balloon angioplasty preceded
by ultrasound IS any better for heart attack patients than

We still don't know whether balloon angioplasty preceded by ultrasound is better than the balloon procedure by itself. How can such a thing be "generally true" to justify the use of present tense?

THX in advance.
Justin

[Whit Garner]

We still don't know whether balloon angioplasty preceded by ultrasound is better than the balloon procedure by itself. How can such a thing be "generally true" to justify the use of present tense?

The idea of "generally true" is to help consider the "time" of the verb. It doesn't matter whether the thing is KNOWN to be true or if we're just trying to figure that out.

"I doubt that people eat dinner at 3 in the morning." (I doubt that it is generally true).