Why is this statement correct ?

[Aquamarine]

"The firm's executives had supported the eco-initiative until the financial crisis struck and they re-evaluated. "

This is from Foundations of GMAT verbal, page 48.

The two parallel parts are supposed to be 'struck' and 're-evaluated'. However logically they have a cause and effect relationship. Financially crisis striking must have caused re-evaluation. Why are these two verbs being made parallel ?

Thanks
Ishita

[Willy]

"The firm's executives had supported the eco-initiative until the financial crisis struck and they re-evaluated. "

This is from Foundations of GMAT verbal, page 48.

The two parallel parts are supposed to be 'struck' and 're-evaluated'. However logically they have a cause and effect relationship. Financially crisis striking must have caused re-evaluation. Why are these two verbs being made parallel ?

Thanks
Ishita

sentence as written is correct.

Executives stopped supporting eco-initiative because of two reasons - financial crisis and re-evaluation of their plan/initiative.

[RonPurewal]

"The firm's executives had supported the eco-initiative until the financial crisis struck and they re-evaluated. "

This is from Foundations of GMAT verbal, page 48.

The two parallel parts are supposed to be 'struck' and 're-evaluated'. However logically they have a cause and effect relationship. Financially crisis striking must have caused re-evaluation. Why are these two verbs being made parallel ?

Thanks
Ishita

hi,
parallel structures are often used for sequential events, regardless of the relationship between those events -- even if they are cause and effect, as you have correctly noted here.
for instance,
The last-place finisher was Smith, who had been winning the race until he tripped and fell in the last 200 meters.
this is the same sort of relationship -- obviously, this particular runner fell because he tripped -- but a parallel structure is still ok for the sequence of events.

[vivs.gupta]

"The firm's executives had supported the eco-initiative until the financial crisis struck and they re-evaluated. "

This is from Foundations of GMAT verbal, page 48.

The two parallel parts are supposed to be 'struck' and 're-evaluated'. However logically they have a cause and effect relationship. Financially crisis striking must have caused re-evaluation. Why are these two verbs being made parallel ?

Thanks
Ishita

Can't we read this sentence as two independent clauses:

[The firm's executives had supported the eco-initiative until the financial crisis struck] and [they re-evaluated].



hi,
parallel structures are often used for sequential events, regardless of the relationship between those events -- even if they are cause and effect, as you have correctly noted here.
for instance,
The last-place finisher was Smith, who had been winning the race until he tripped and fell in the last 200 meters.
this is the same sort of relationship -- obviously, this particular runner fell because he tripped -- but a parallel structure is still ok for the sequence of events.

[Willy]

No.

See there is no COMMA before AND so we can't read this sentence as two independent clauses.

Remember COMMA + FANBOYS rule?

[vivs.gupta]

No.

See there is no COMMA before AND so we can't read this sentence as two independent clauses.

Remember COMMA + FANBOYS rule?

I think comma before "and" joining two independent clauses is optional

[Willy]

No.

See there is no COMMA before AND so we can't read this sentence as two independent clauses.

Remember COMMA + FANBOYS rule?

I think comma before "and" joining two independent clauses is optional

No, COMMA before "and" joining two independent clauses is not optional.

I think you are confusing with parallel constructions.

e.g.

I love Eva, and Era loves Willy.

I love Eva and Era.

Both sentences are correct. First one is an example of independent clauses connected with COMMA + AND.

Second example is of parallelism. You can omit COMMA before AND here.

[vivs.gupta]

No.

See there is no COMMA before AND so we can't read this sentence as two independent clauses.

Remember COMMA + FANBOYS rule?

I think comma before "and" joining two independent clauses is optional

No, COMMA before "and" joining two independent clauses is not optional.

I think you are confusing with parallel constructions.

e.g.

I love Eva, and Era loves Willy.

I love Eva and Era.

Both sentences are correct. First one is an example of independent clauses connected with COMMA + AND.

Second example is of parallelism. You can omit COMMA before AND here.

the following info is from chapter 4 of sentence correction guide.

"if you join 2 clauses with and, you can put an optional comma before the and.
Doing so is especially recommended when the clauses are long, independent, or both".

[tim]

this is not referring to INDEPENDENT clauses, which ALWAYS require a comma to separate them..