Grocery...!!!

IMO D

abhishek.pati wrote:The owner of Steele’s Grocery in Osage, Ohio, saved $600 monthly on heat during the winter by putting all his refrigerator air compressors together in an insulated compartment, then installing two fans and a duct that carried waste heat from the compressors into the main part of the store.

(A) then installing two fans and a duct that carried
(B) then he installing two fans and a duct that carried
(C) then two fans were installed with a duct that carried
(D) installing two fans, and then carrying through a duct
(E) installing two fans, and a duct carrying

Call between D and E. IMO D based on parallelism.

The sentence structure looks like by x, y and Z.

by putting all his refrigerator air compressors together in an insulated compartment, installing two fans, and then carrying through a duct waste heat from the compressors into the main part of the store.

The three statements in different colors denote parallel items.

However, I would have chosen option E if an *and* was appended before the option as follows,

(F) and installing two fans, and a duct carrying

which would make the sentence look like,

The owner of Steele’s Grocery in Osage, Ohio, saved $600 monthly on heat during the winter by putting all his refrigerator air compressors together in an insulated compartment, and installing two fans, and a duct carrying waste heat from the compressors into the main part of the store.

Please correct incase wrong.

bubbliiiiiiii wrote:
However, I would have chosen option E if an *and* was appended before the option as follows,

(F) and installing two fans, and a duct carrying

which would make the sentence look like,

The owner of Steele’s Grocery in Osage, Ohio, saved $600 monthly on heat during the winter by putting all his refrigerator air compressors together in an insulated compartment, and installing two fans, and a duct carrying waste heat from the compressors into the main part of the store.

Please correct incase wrong.

Hi,
Even now, the three things are not parallel.
putting, installing, a duct carrying are not parallel.

The intended meaning in D is that the owner put..., the owner installed...., the owner carried through a duct... which is not the case.
The meaning is clear in the original sentence.

Hence, A

Hi,
Even now, the three things are not parallel.
putting, installing, a duct carrying are not parallel.

The intended meaning in D is that the owner put..., the owner installed...., the owner carried through a duct... which is not the case.
The meaning is clear in the original sentence.

Hence, A

Hi Frank,

Thanks for presenting a different approach to the question.

Coming to,

Even now, the three things are not parallel.
putting, installing, a duct carrying are not parallel.

I assume that you have got an impression that using option F, there is a single list in the question, but the *and* in F separates the list into two in the following way,

The owner of Steele’s Grocery in Osage, Ohio, saved $600 monthly on heat during the winter by
putting all his refrigerator air compressors together in an insulated compartment,
and
installing
two fans,
and a duct
carrying waste heat from the compressors into the main part of the store.

The first *and* seperates putting and installing while the second *and* seperates fans and a duct, which is a list of two parallel elements.

Fellow bloggers/Experts please put forth your views on this.

bubbliiiiiiii wrote:
I assume that you have got an impression that using option F, there is a single list in the question, but the *and* in F separates the list into two in the following way,

The owner of Steele’s Grocery in Osage, Ohio, saved $600 monthly on heat during the winter by
putting all his refrigerator air compressors together in an insulated compartment,
and
installing
two fans,
and a duct
carrying waste heat from the compressors into the main part of the store.

The first *and* seperates putting and installing while the second *and* seperates fans and a duct, which is a list of two parallel elements.

Fellow bloggers/Experts please put forth your views on this.

Hi,
In that case, i don't think we need comma before 'and'.

Expert comments would be appreciated

+1 for frank it shall be A

IMO A

IMO A ...

abhishek.pati wrote:The owner of Steele’s Grocery in Osage, Ohio, saved $600 monthly on heat during the winter by putting all his refrigerator air compressors together in an insulated compartment, then installing two fans and a duct that carried waste heat from the compressors into the main part of the store.

(A) then installing two fans and a duct that carried
(B) then he installing two fans and a duct that carried
(C) then two fans were installed with a duct that carried
(D) installing two fans, and then carrying through a duct
(E) installing two fans, and a duct carrying

The part of installing two fans would be done only after putting all the compressor in an insulated compartment. So the use of THEN is preferable as installing would give it the same precedence. Making it appear as a list of actions taken(which is not the case). Eliminate D and E

Option C uses passive voice, which is not required. ELiminate

Option B is wordy and the use of he seems unnecessary

Hence IMO A

OA for this is A

Frankenstein wrote: In that case, i don't think we need comma before 'and'.

I think its optional to use comma when *and* is used as a list separator. Earlier, I used to perceive that its optional when the no. of elements in a list are greater than 2 but I recently read in some post that its optional for lists that contains two elements as well.

bubbliiiiiiii wrote:

Frankenstein wrote: In that case, i don't think we need comma before 'and'.

I think its optional to use comma when *and* is used as a list separator. Earlier, I used to perceive that its optional when the no. of elements in a list are greater than 2 but I recently read in some post that its optional for lists that contains two elements as well.

Hi,
That could be optional in a sentence with single conjunction. But this sentence has two ',and'. So, I still think it is incorrect.

Frankenstein wrote: That could be optional in a sentence with single conjunction. But this sentence has two ',and'. So, I still think it is incorrect.

If you are trying to say that you agree with the optional comma concept posted above and its wrong in this case only because the sentence contains two *,and* then I differ on that.

If there is some other reason or if I mistook your comment please help me understand it. I am not arguing whether option F fits this case or not, but want to get clarity on the concept.