BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

In contrast to large steel plants

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:14 members

In contrast to large steel plants

by aditya8062 » Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:53 pm
In contrast to large steel plants that take iron ore through all the steps needed to produce several different kinds of steel, processing steel scrap into a specialized group of products has enabled small mills to put capital into new technology and remain economically viable.

(A) processing steel scrap into a specialized group of products has enabled small mills to put capital into new technology and remain
(B) processing steel scrap into a specialized group of products has enabled small mills to put capital into new technology, remaining
(C) the processing of steel scrap into a specialized group of products has enabled small mills to put capital into new technology, remaining
(D) small mills, by processing steel scrap into a specialized group of products, have been able to put capital into new technology and remain
(E) small mills, by processing steel scrap into a specialized group of products, have been able to put capital into new technology and remained

my doubt : while i do understand that D is parallel in the following way : "to put"
is parallel to "to remain"

what i dont understand is why cant E be parallel in the following way : have been able to put capital in new technology is parallel to have remained economically viable

instructors please help
thanks and regards
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1031
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:23 pm
Location: Malibu, CA
Thanked: 716 times
Followed by:255 members
GMAT Score:750

by Brian@VeritasPrep » Fri Mar 08, 2013 12:22 pm
Really good question and I agree that it's a pretty subtle difference.

Here's one crack at explaining the difference:

*where "to put" is parallel to "remain", the controlling phrase of both of them is "have been able to" - and that's a pretty logical parallel set of items (they've been able to do two things, put capital in to tech and remain viable)

*where "have been able to" and "have remained" would be parallel treats them like separate events since they're not controlled by the same "have been able to" phrase. And that's a weird meaning since the two things are pretty clearly related in cause/effect. To use the phrasing in E and to convey a logical meaning you'd need to link them...something like "have been able to put capital into new tech and have therefore remained viable."

*and another thought on it - in D, there's absolutely no doubt over which two verbs are parallel since there are only two verbs left in the sentence (have been able to X and Y, and X and Y are in the same form). In E, you're trying to make parallel the first and third of three straight verbs, so it jumbles the meaning: "Have BEEN able to (put) and REMAINED". That intervening verb is at the very least one that puts a hitch in the parallelism, and so in direct comparison with D which doesn't have that problem, E is wrong.
Brian Galvin
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep

Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:14 members

by aditya8062 » Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:45 pm
good day Brian
Brian quote: *where "have been able to" and "have remained" would be parallel treats them like separate events since they're not controlled by the same "have been able to" phrase. And that's a weird meaning since the two things are pretty clearly related in cause/effect. To use the phrasing in E and to convey a logical meaning you'd need to link them...something like "have been able to put capital into new tech and have therefore remained viable."
i have one doubt : is it that the "have" of the "have been" in the first part of parallelism cannot be taken as ellipses in the second part and hence should be repeated in the second part as u have done so in the rewritten structure as bolded

in other words : is it true for any present perfect structure that the have of the present perfect in the first part cannot be taken as ellipses for the second part. for example in the following sentence : i have been going to the gym more than my brother have

in this sentence i need to repeat "have" in the second part to make it correct and cannot take it as an ellipse of first part

thanks and regards
Last edited by aditya8062 on Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:31 pm
Thanked: 42 times
Followed by:20 members

by sana.noor » Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:48 pm
D for me
In contrast to large steel...., the next part should start with small mills for a better comparison..so A, B and C are out.
E is wrong because "To put" isnt parallel to "remained"
D wins
Work hard in Silence, Let Success make the noise.

If you found my Post really helpful, then don't forget to click the Thank/follow me button. :)
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1