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

Redeem

Parallelism

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:04 pm
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:2 members

Parallelism

by Mission2012 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:42 am
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,
If you find my post useful -> please click on "Thanks"
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 643
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 4:27 am
Thanked: 48 times
Followed by:7 members

by vinay1983 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:05 am
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
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!
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pm
Thanked: 448 times
Followed by:34 members
GMAT Score:650

by theCodeToGMAT » Sun Oct 06, 2013 4:59 am
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.
R A H U L
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:04 pm
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:2 members

by Mission2012 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:27 am
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.
If you find my post useful -> please click on "Thanks"
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pm
Thanked: 448 times
Followed by:34 members
GMAT Score:650

by theCodeToGMAT » Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:32 am
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 :)
R A H U L
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:04 pm
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:2 members

by Mission2012 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:55 am
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"
If you find my post useful -> please click on "Thanks"
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pm
Thanked: 448 times
Followed by:34 members
GMAT Score:650

by theCodeToGMAT » Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:12 am
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]
R A H U L
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:04 pm
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:2 members

by Mission2012 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:23 am
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]
If you find my post useful -> please click on "Thanks"
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
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

by [email protected] » Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:26 pm
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
Contact Rich at [email protected]
Image
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:04 pm
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:2 members

by Mission2012 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:25 pm
[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.
If you find my post useful -> please click on "Thanks"
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
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

by [email protected] » Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:48 pm
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
Contact Rich at [email protected]
Image
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 184
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:04 pm
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:2 members

by Mission2012 » Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
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
If you find my post useful -> please click on "Thanks"
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:20 pm
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:4 members

by vipulgoyal » Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:50 am
I agree with Rich,
turned is // with persuaded and liberating is // with claiming
OA should b
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pm
Thanked: 448 times
Followed by:34 members
GMAT Score:650

by theCodeToGMAT » Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:06 am
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"
R A H U L
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:20 pm
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:4 members

by vipulgoyal » Tue Oct 08, 2013 4:16 am
you got it champ
Top
Post new topic Locked