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,
Parallelism
- Mission2012
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:04 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:2 members
- vinay1983
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 643
- Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:27 am
- Thanked: 48 times
- Followed by:7 members
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)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,
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
You can, for example never foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with precision what an average number will be up to!
- theCodeToGMAT
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1556
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pm
- Thanked: 448 times
- Followed by:34 members
- GMAT Score:650
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.
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.
R A H U L
- Mission2012
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:04 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:2 members
Hi Rahul,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.
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.
If you find my post useful -> please click on "Thanks"
- theCodeToGMAT
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1556
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pm
- Thanked: 448 times
- Followed by:34 members
- GMAT Score:650
I would be thankful to you if you could type the question here.. I lost OG few months agoMission2012 wrote:Hi Rahul,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.
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.
R A H U L
- Mission2012
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:04 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:2 members
theCodeToGMAT wrote:I would be thankful to you if you could type the question here.. I lost OG few months agoMission2012 wrote:Hi Rahul,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.
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.
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"
If you find my post useful -> please click on "Thanks"
- theCodeToGMAT
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1556
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pm
- Thanked: 448 times
- Followed by:34 members
- GMAT Score:650
Yep sure, By the way.. is the OA [spoiler]{D}[/spoiler]Mission2012 wrote:theCodeToGMAT wrote:I would be thankful to you if you could type the question here.. I lost OG few months agoMission2012 wrote:Hi Rahul,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.
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.
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"
R A H U L
- Mission2012
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:04 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:2 members
Yes OA is D.
And option A was the genesis of my query.
And option A was the genesis of my query.
theCodeToGMAT wrote:Yep sure, By the way.. is the OA [spoiler]{D}[/spoiler]Mission2012 wrote:theCodeToGMAT wrote:I would be thankful to you if you could type the question here.. I lost OG few months agoMission2012 wrote:Hi Rahul,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.
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.
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"
If you find my post useful -> please click on "Thanks"
GMAT/MBA Expert
- [email protected]
- Elite Legendary Member
- Posts: 10392
- Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:38 pm
- Location: Palo Alto, CA
- Thanked: 2867 times
- Followed by:511 members
- GMAT Score:800
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
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
- Mission2012
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:04 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:2 members
Hi Rich,[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
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.
If you find my post useful -> please click on "Thanks"
GMAT/MBA Expert
- [email protected]
- Elite Legendary Member
- Posts: 10392
- Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:38 pm
- Location: Palo Alto, CA
- Thanked: 2867 times
- Followed by:511 members
- GMAT Score:800
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
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
- Mission2012
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:04 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:2 members
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
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
If you find my post useful -> please click on "Thanks"
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:20 pm
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:4 members
- theCodeToGMAT
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1556
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pm
- Thanked: 448 times
- Followed by:34 members
- GMAT Score:650
Vipul, the correct idiom is "persuade X to Y"vipulgoyal wrote:I agree with Rich,
turned is // with persuaded and liberating is // with claiming
OA should b
R A H U L
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 468
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:20 pm
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:4 members