Not....But and parallelism

[Amadalia]

Good day
Accordin to the rule "NOT A but B" is a parallelism structure in which A should be similar to B.
But in page 160 of Manhattan SC I've found out the following sentence.
The agency is NOT a fully independent entity BUT INSTEAD derives its authority from Congress. (note that the verbs is and derives are parallel)
According to the inside rule a fully independant entity should be parallel to other noun or noun phrase, not a clause, and second how can is be parallel to derives in this sentence??!!!
Many thanks in advance.

[[email protected]]

Hi Amadalia,

This example poses an interesting "problem", but it's not as bad as you think. You are correct that 2-part phrases require "parallelism" rules.

The sentence would be better if it compared two nouns OR two descriptions.

eg. The agency is NOT fully independent BUT INSTEAD derives authority from Congress.

Modifiers (in this case "fully independent") are supposed to be right next to the noun that they modify. In this sentence though, they're somewhat far from the word "agency." The solution to this problem is to place the noun (or equivalent) into each of the 2 phrases.

Now we have...

The agency is not a fully independent ENTITY but instead derives ITS authority from Congress.

Here we have the intent/references to 2 nouns. I don't love this sentence, but it's not terrible.

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

[Amadalia]

Thanks RICH for you prompt reply,

eg. The agency is NOT fully independent BUT INSTEAD derives authority from Congress.

Modifiers (in this case "fully independent") are supposed to be right next to the noun that they modify. In this sentence though, they're somewhat far from the word "agency."

Is not fully independant right next to the noun it modifies??

The agency is not a fully independent ENTITY but instead derives ITS authority from Congress

According to my modest understanding, not X but instead Y rule, this sentence is still not parallel , as it contrast a noun phrase to an entire clause.

Many thanks in advance and keep in mind that I'm not a native speaker so What might appear obvious to you might not be so for me.

[GMATGuruNY]

The agency is NOT a fully independent entity BUT INSTEAD derives its authority from Congress.

Simple tense forms of to be include is, are, was, and were.
Simple tense forms of to be cannot follow not but must PRECEDE it:
John IS NOT a runner.
The shirts WERE NOT red.

In the sentence above, NOT X BUT Y serves to connect two verb phrases:
X = IS a fully independent entity
Y = DERIVES its authority from Congress

Since the verb in X is a simple tense form of to be, it must precede not:
The agency IS NOT a fully independent entity BUT [instead] DERIVES its authority from Congress.

In the second verb phrase, instead serves as an adverbial modifier.
HOW does the agency derive its authority?
The agency derives its authority INSTEAD.
It is fine for the second phrase to include an adverb not included in the first phrase.

[Amadalia]

Thanks a million Guru, it's a precious piece of information,you made my day!!!