Mission2012 wrote:Which of the following is correct and why -

Ann went for the tennis match and she met Joe at the match.
Ann went for the tennis match and met Joe at the match.

Regards,

I feel both are correct. In the first sentence we are saying "Ann went to the match and she met Joe at the match" (Unintended meeting)

Second one= "Ann went to the match and met Joe at the match" (Intended to meet Joe at the match) Maybe it was pre planned

Sentence 1:
Ann went for the tennis match and she met Joe at the match.
--> "went" & "met" are VERB
--> "tennis match" & "match" are NOUN.
--> "she" is redundant
--> According to me "And" connector here is incorrect; use of semicolon is better.

Sentence 2:
Ann went for the tennis match and met Joe at the match.
--> "went" & "met" are VERB
--> "tennis match" & "match" are NOUN.
--> According to me "And" connector here is incorrect; use of semicolon is better.

theCodeToGMAT wrote:Sentence 1:
Ann went for the tennis match and she met Joe at the match.
--> "went" & "met" are VERB
--> "tennis match" & "match" are NOUN.
--> "she" is redundant
--> According to me "And" connector here is incorrect; use of semicolon is better.

Sentence 2:
Ann went for the tennis match and met Joe at the match.
--> "went" & "met" are VERB
--> "tennis match" & "match" are NOUN.
--> According to me "And" connector here is incorrect; use of semicolon is better.

Hi Rahul,

You are right and your choice also echos with OG questions. Check Q 127.
But i am still not sure why can we have two clauses with two subjects connected with coordinators. Which rule of parallelism is breached? Experts please help.

Mission2012 wrote:

theCodeToGMAT wrote:Sentence 1:
Ann went for the tennis match and she met Joe at the match.
--> "went" & "met" are VERB
--> "tennis match" & "match" are NOUN.
--> "she" is redundant
--> According to me "And" connector here is incorrect; use of semicolon is better.

Sentence 2:
Ann went for the tennis match and met Joe at the match.
--> "went" & "met" are VERB
--> "tennis match" & "match" are NOUN.
--> According to me "And" connector here is incorrect; use of semicolon is better.

Hi Rahul,

You are right and your choice also echos with OG questions. Check Q 127.
But i am still not sure why can we have two clauses with two subjects connected with coordinators. Which rule of parallelism is breached? Experts please help.

I would be thankful to you if you could type the question here.. I lost OG few months ago

theCodeToGMAT wrote:

Mission2012 wrote:

theCodeToGMAT wrote:Sentence 1:
Ann went for the tennis match and she met Joe at the match.
--> "went" & "met" are VERB
--> "tennis match" & "match" are NOUN.
--> "she" is redundant
--> According to me "And" connector here is incorrect; use of semicolon is better.

Sentence 2:
Ann went for the tennis match and met Joe at the match.
--> "went" & "met" are VERB
--> "tennis match" & "match" are NOUN.
--> According to me "And" connector here is incorrect; use of semicolon is better.

Hi Rahul,

You are right and your choice also echos with OG questions. Check Q 127.
But i am still not sure why can we have two clauses with two subjects connected with coordinators. Which rule of parallelism is breached? Experts please help.

I would be thankful to you if you could type the question here.. I lost OG few months ago

Joan of Arc, a young Frenchwoman who claimed to be divinely inspired, turned the tide of English victories in her country by liberating the city of Orleans and she persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne.

(A) she persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne
(B) persuaded Charles VII of France in claiming his throne
(C) persuading that the throne be claimed by Charles VII of France
(D) persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne
(E) persuading that Charles VII of France should claim the throne


Hi Rahul,

Could you please take a look at my query with subject "Evidence"

Mission2012 wrote:

theCodeToGMAT wrote:

Mission2012 wrote:

theCodeToGMAT wrote:Sentence 1:
Ann went for the tennis match and she met Joe at the match.
--> "went" & "met" are VERB
--> "tennis match" & "match" are NOUN.
--> "she" is redundant
--> According to me "And" connector here is incorrect; use of semicolon is better.

Sentence 2:
Ann went for the tennis match and met Joe at the match.
--> "went" & "met" are VERB
--> "tennis match" & "match" are NOUN.
--> According to me "And" connector here is incorrect; use of semicolon is better.

Hi Rahul,

You are right and your choice also echos with OG questions. Check Q 127.
But i am still not sure why can we have two clauses with two subjects connected with coordinators. Which rule of parallelism is breached? Experts please help.

I would be thankful to you if you could type the question here.. I lost OG few months ago

Joan of Arc, a young Frenchwoman who claimed to be divinely inspired, turned the tide of English victories in her country by liberating the city of Orleans and she persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne.

(A) she persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne
(B) persuaded Charles VII of France in claiming his throne
(C) persuading that the throne be claimed by Charles VII of France
(D) persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne
(E) persuading that Charles VII of France should claim the throne


Hi Rahul,

Could you please take a look at my query with subject "Evidence"

Yep sure, By the way.. is the OA [spoiler]{D}[/spoiler]

Yes OA is D.
And option A was the genesis of my query.

theCodeToGMAT wrote:

Mission2012 wrote:

theCodeToGMAT wrote:

Mission2012 wrote:

theCodeToGMAT wrote:Sentence 1:
Ann went for the tennis match and she met Joe at the match.
--> "went" & "met" are VERB
--> "tennis match" & "match" are NOUN.
--> "she" is redundant
--> According to me "And" connector here is incorrect; use of semicolon is better.

Sentence 2:
Ann went for the tennis match and met Joe at the match.
--> "went" & "met" are VERB
--> "tennis match" & "match" are NOUN.
--> According to me "And" connector here is incorrect; use of semicolon is better.

Hi Rahul,

You are right and your choice also echos with OG questions. Check Q 127.
But i am still not sure why can we have two clauses with two subjects connected with coordinators. Which rule of parallelism is breached? Experts please help.

I would be thankful to you if you could type the question here.. I lost OG few months ago

Joan of Arc, a young Frenchwoman who claimed to be divinely inspired, turned the tide of English victories in her country by liberating the city of Orleans and she persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne.

(A) she persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne
(B) persuaded Charles VII of France in claiming his throne
(C) persuading that the throne be claimed by Charles VII of France
(D) persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne
(E) persuading that Charles VII of France should claim the throne


Hi Rahul,

Could you please take a look at my query with subject "Evidence"

Yep sure, By the way.. is the OA [spoiler]{D}[/spoiler]

[email protected] wrote:Hi Mission2012,

Both of your "example" sentences include "redundant language", which is considered incorrect style. The word "match" should not appear twice.

While there are several ways to correctly write the sentence, here are a couple:

Ann met Joe at the tennis match.

Ann went to the tennis match to meet Joe.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich

Hi Rich,

My question stemmed from this question from OG -

Joan of Arc, a young Frenchwoman who claimed to be divinely inspired, turned the tide of English victories in her country by liberating the city of Orleans and she persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne.

(A) she persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne
(B) persuaded Charles VII of France in claiming his throne
(C) persuading that the throne be claimed by Charles VII of France
(D) persuaded Charles VII of France to claim his throne
(E) persuading that Charles VII of France should claim the throne

And option A is incorrect because it violates parallelism.
Could you explain why it violates parallel construction.

Hi Rich,

OA : D
Compare D and A. Only difference is "She" at the beginning of the second clause.

And OG says that it breaches parallelism becuase of that

[email protected] wrote:Hi Mission2012,

In this SC, we're told that Joan of Arc did 2 things - this means that the sentence will involve parallel structure.

The first: "turned the tide...."

So the second must begin with a past tense verb (NOT a pronoun). Eliminate A, C and E. As a side note, the pronoun in the original sentence is redundant and non-parallel.

The second: "persuaded Charles VII...."

With the remaining 2 answers, the phrase "persuaded....to claim his throne" sounds better. Also, the infinitive "to claim" implies a one-time event; the gerund "in claiming" implies a timeless event.

Final Answer: B

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich

I agree with Rich,
turned is // with persuaded and liberating is // with claiming
OA should b

vipulgoyal wrote:I agree with Rich,
turned is // with persuaded and liberating is // with claiming
OA should b

Vipul, the correct idiom is "persuade X to Y"

you got it champ