Sentence Correction

According to scholars, the earliest writing was probably not a direct rendering of speech, but was more likely to begin as a separate and distinct symbolic system of communication, and only later merged with spoken language.

A. was more likely to begin as
B. more than likely began as,
C. more than likely beginning from
D. it was more than likely begun from
E. it was more likely that it began

my doubt : though i picked the right answer but i have a little confusion about the construction of this sentence
is this sentence not a construction of "not X but Y" types? . i feel that the correct choice violates the above mentioned idiom because after "not" we have a noun "a direct rendering of speech" where as after "but" we have a verb "began" .
if this sentence is not of "not X but Y" types then what are the parallel elements?

thanks

aditya8062 wrote: is this sentence not a construction of "not X but Y" types? . i feel that the correct choice violates the above mentioned idiom because after "not" we have a noun "a direct rendering of speech" where as after "but" we have a verb "began" .
if this sentence is not of "not X but Y" types then what are the parallel elements?

When not serves to negate a verb, it must FOLLOW the helping verb or linking verb:
john DID not play the clarinet.
John WILL not attend the party.
John WAS not tall.
In every case, not follows the helping verb or linking verb.

This rule holds true even when not serves as part of the idiom NOT X BUT Y.
OA: The earliest writing WAS probably not a direct rendering of speech but more than likely began as a separate and distinct symbolic system of communication.
Here, not correctly follows the linking verb was.

Thanks Guru for your reply
i agree that "not" must follow "was", as you have mentioned but what perplexes me is the flouting of the parallelism of structure "not X but Y"

in the correct answer after "not" we have a noun "a direct rendering of speech" where as after "but" we have a verb "began" . i presume that "verb" and "noun" cannot form a parallel structure in the construction "not X but Y"

Thanks and Regards

aditya8062 wrote:Thanks Guru for your reply
i agree that "not" must follow "was", as you have mentioned but what perplexes me is the flouting of the parallelism of structure "not X but Y"

in the correct answer after "not" we have a noun "a direct rendering of speech" where as after "but" we have a verb "began" .

Thanks and Regards

If the verb attributed to not were a regular verb form such as evolve, the result might be the following:
The earliest writing did not EVOLVE from speech but BEGAN as a separate and distinct symbolic system.
Here, not and but are each followed by a verb form.
The result is a structure that is clearly parallel.

But in the SC above, the verb attributed to not is a LINKING VERB (was).
As I noted in my initial post, not cannot precede a linking verb.
For this reason, the OA has no choice but to place the linking verb was BEFORE not, yielding the following structure:
The earliest writing was not a direct rendering of speech but began as a separate and distinct symbolic system.
Since the resulting sentence is as parallel as possible, there is no error.

Thanks a lot Guru
honestly your last reply is very helpful . it is all new to me . i did mark the right answer in this question (may be because the sentence looked good to me) but then when i was applying parallelism (while evaluating this question) in very strict way then my confusion cropped up
now what i gather from you is as follow :

in not X but Y construction the parallelism between X and Y can be applied as usual when X and Y are noun, HOWEVER when Y is verb then the "helping verb" before "NOT" can also make the structure parallel

Thanks again

Good day Guru
i have a follow up question here
i understand that in the sentence: The earliest writing was not a direct rendering of speech but began as a separate and distinct symbolic system.

the intended parallelism is as follows(sentence 1) : The earliest writing was not a direct rendering of speech but [THE EARLIEST WRITING] began as a separate and distinct symbolic system.

NOW if the apply the same concept in option B of the below mentioned sentence then i should be getting a right answer but to my dismay B is wrong

sentence The reams of studies and drafts documented by Gustave Eiffel indicate that the design of the Eiffel Tower generally emerged not in a rapid manner but developed painstakingly from multiple trial prototypes.

A emerged not in a rapid manner but developed painstakingly
B emerged not in a rapid manner but was painstakingly developed
C did not emerge in a rapid manner but developed painstakingly
D did not emerge in a rapid manner but had painstakingly developed
E did not emerge in a rapid manner but it was painstakingly developed

i thought the intended parallelism in B is as follows (sentence 2): The reams of studies and drafts documented by Gustave Eiffel indicate that the design of the Eiffel Tower generally emerged emerged not in a rapid manner but [THE DESIGN OF THE EIFFEL TOWER] was painstakingly developed from multiple trial prototypes.

my doubt: i fail to understand that when clauses are being made parallel in sentence 1 then why can't clauses be made parallel in sentence 2

thanks and regards

aditya8062 wrote:Good day Guru
i have a follow up question here
i understand that in the sentence: The earliest writing was not a direct rendering of speech but began as a separate and distinct symbolic system.

the intended parallelism is as follows(sentence 1) : The earliest writing was not a direct rendering of speech but [THE EARLIEST WRITING] began as a separate and distinct symbolic system.

NOW if the apply the same concept in option B of the below mentioned sentence then i should be getting a right answer but to my dismay B is wrong

sentence The reams of studies and drafts documented by Gustave Eiffel indicate that the design of the Eiffel Tower generally emerged not in a rapid manner but developed painstakingly from multiple trial prototypes.

A emerged not in a rapid manner but developed painstakingly
B emerged not in a rapid manner but was painstakingly developed
C did not emerge in a rapid manner but developed painstakingly
D did not emerge in a rapid manner but had painstakingly developed
E did not emerge in a rapid manner but it was painstakingly developed

i thought the intended parallelism in B is as follows (sentence 2): The reams of studies and drafts documented by Gustave Eiffel indicate that the design of the Eiffel Tower generally emerged emerged not in a rapid manner but [THE DESIGN OF THE EIFFEL TOWER] was painstakingly developed from multiple trial prototypes.

my doubt: i fail to understand that when clauses are being made parallel in sentence 1 then why can't clauses be made parallel in sentence 2

thanks and regards

In the idiom not X but Y, X and Y must serve the SAME PURPOSE.

Case 1:
The earliest writing was not a direct rendering of speech but began as a separate and distinct symbolic system.
Here, X and Y are both VERB FORMS (was a direct rendering of speech and began as a separate and distinct symbolic system).
The first verb (was) precedes not for one simple reason: a linking verb such as was cannot follow not.

Case 2
The design emerged not in a rapid manner but was painstakingly developed.
Here, in a rapid manner is an ADVERB, while was painstakingly developed is a VERB form.
Not X but Y cannot serve to connect an adverb to a verb form.

Good Day Guru
thanks for your reply .

in a sentence: The earliest writing was not a direct rendering of speech but began as a separate and distinct symbolic system.

the verb before "not" ( i.e,WAS) is participating in the parallelism and thus making the sentence parallel as follows: The earliest writing was not a direct rendering of speech but began as a separate and distinct symbolic system

my point is why can't the same thing happen in the this sentence: The design emerged not in a rapid manner but was painstakingly developed.

the verb before "not" is "emerged" and can participate in the parallelism to make the sentence parallel as shown in bold: The design emerged not in a rapid manner but was painstakingly developed.

i know i am wrong somewhere but not sure where .please help me understand my fault
Thanks and regards

aditya8062 wrote:Good Day Guru
thanks for your reply .

in a sentence: The earliest writing was not a direct rendering of speech but began as a separate and distinct symbolic system.

the verb before "not" ( i.e,WAS) is participating in the parallelism and thus making the sentence parallel as follows: The earliest writing was not a direct rendering of speech but began as a separate and distinct symbolic system

Generally, when not X but Y serves to contrast verb forms, the first verb form must FOLLOW not.
But here, the first verb form (was) is an EXCEPTION:
A linking verb such as was cannot follow not.
Thus, the sentence must read as follows:
The earliest writing WAS not a direct rendering of speech but BEGAN as a separate and distinct symbolic system.

my point is why can't the same thing happen in the this sentence: The design emerged not in a rapid manner but was painstakingly developed.

the verb before "not" is "emerged" and can participate in the parallelism to make the sentence parallel as shown in bold: The design emerged not in a rapid manner but was painstakingly developed.

i know i am wrong somewhere but not sure where .please help me understand my fault
Thanks and regards

Here, If emerged PRECEDES not, then the intent must be to state that the design emerged not ONE WAY but ANOTHER WAY, as in the following sentence:
The design emerged NOT IN A RAPID MANNER but AT A FRUSTRATINGLY SLOW PACE.

If the intent is to contrast VERB FORMS, then the first verb form must FOLLOW not, since such a structure is possible:
The design did not EMERGE in a rapid manner but WAS painstakingly DEVELOPED.

Thanks a lot Guru
the fact that you explain such complex things with such an ease amazes me .thank you so much

regards

Hey GMATGuruNY can you please brief why A is wrong than ?
I rejected it becasue of was .

Also one more thing can we use "may" like that of "was" for not X but Y construction ?