https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/not ... -t276.html
According to Stacy, we probably won't see another question that breaks the idiom.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
good one
-
kapur.arnav
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:36 am
- Thanked: 6 times
Aha... found it.. here it goes... https://www.beatthegmat.com/idiom-not-on ... t9913.html..kapur.arnav wrote:Ya... that question follows a different rule...uwhusky wrote:Read through the post, it does not violate the idiom "not only...but also..." It's an entirely different construction.
You may note the following:
Not only x... but also y.
&
not only x... but y - both are correct.....
In the following q but also at is not present in the non underlined part... hence you should just concentrate on not only x... but y
The skill and the precision of the Anasazi, ancient inhabitants of the Southwest, in measuring the movements of the Sun a ... t only at Chaco Canyon but at a number of other sites
(A) in measuring the movements of the Sun and Moon is evidenced not only at - is evidenced is wrong... we are measuring 2 things..
(B) in measuring the movements of the Sun and Moon are evidenced not only at - correct
(C) in measuring the movements of the Sun and Moon is evidenced at not only - lacks parallelism
(D) to measure the movements of the Sun and Moon is evidenced at not only - lacks parallelism
(E) to measure the movements of the Sun and Moon are evidenced not only at - to measure is wrong
Hope it helps... I'm searching for that not only x... but y construction for you... will post it for sure if im able to locate it...
-
uwhusky
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:20 pm
- Thanked: 74 times
- Followed by:4 members
More discussion on this matter: https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/by- ... t1459.html
Good stuff btw, didn't think I was able to dig this far on what I thought was a simple idiom.
Good stuff btw, didn't think I was able to dig this far on what I thought was a simple idiom.
Yep.
-
kapur.arnav
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:36 am
- Thanked: 6 times
Let me give you the best in this series... here it goes.. btw after this im not sure what is correct... guys can someone correctly and foronce and for all summarize this rule... this can be a pain on the day for sure...uwhusky wrote:More discussion on this matter: https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/by- ... t1459.html
Good stuff btw, didn't think I was able to dig this far on what I thought was a simple idiom.
As a result of surging economic indicators, most analysts upgraded thre company's stock to a strong "buy" ignoring the advice of the head of a watchdog organization who warned that the company's product would prove not only dangerous but ineffective in the long run.
A. who warned that the company's product would prove not only dangerous but
B. warning that the company's product would prove not only dangerous and also
C. Warning that the company's product would prove itself to be both dangerous and
D who warned that the company's product would prove to be both dangerous and
E. who was warning that the company's product would prove not only dangerous but
https://www.beatthegmat.com/economic-ind ... tml#165802
-
uwhusky
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:20 pm
- Thanked: 74 times
- Followed by:4 members
Ron summarized it perfectly, and I don't think we should complicate it further unless a specific GMAT example warrants such effort.
Plus the question you just cited is not an OG question.
Plus the question you just cited is not an OG question.
Yep.
-
kapur.arnav
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:36 am
- Thanked: 6 times
Correct... I just happened to overread Ron's Post.... He has summarized it perfectly!!!uwhusky wrote:Ron summarized it perfectly, and I don't think we should complicate it further unless a specific GMAT example warrants such effort.
Plus the question you just cited is not an OG question.
thanks......for your brief explanation........kapur.arnav wrote:Ya... that question follows a different rule...uwhusky wrote:Read through the post, it does not violate the idiom "not only...but also..." It's an entirely different construction.
You may note the following:
Not only x... but also y.
&
not only x... but y - both are correct.....
In the following q but also at is not present in the non underlined part... hence you should just concentrate on not only x... but y
The skill and the precision of the Anasazi, ancient inhabitants of the Southwest, in measuring the movements of the Sun a ... t only at Chaco Canyon but at a number of other sites
(A) in measuring the movements of the Sun and Moon is evidenced not only at - is evidenced is wrong... we are measuring 2 things..
(B) in measuring the movements of the Sun and Moon are evidenced not only at - correct
(C) in measuring the movements of the Sun and Moon is evidenced at not only - lacks parallelism
(D) to measure the movements of the Sun and Moon is evidenced at not only - lacks parallelism
(E) to measure the movements of the Sun and Moon are evidenced not only at - to measure is wrong
Hope it helps... I'm searching for that not only x... but y construction for you... will post it for sure if im able to locate it...
