weird parallelism: expert's opinion will be appreciated

[imskpwr]

Proponents of the recent banking law changes assert that federal deregulation of investment procedures has neither exposed smaller banks to unfair competition nor increased corporate monopoly, and also has not compromised the government's basic long-term commitment to the free market.

neither exposed smaller banks to unfair competition nor increased corporate monopoly, and also has not

neither exposed smaller banks to unfair competition or increased corporate monopoly or

not exposed smaller banks to unfair competition or increased corporate monopoly, nor has it

not exposed smaller banks to unfair competition nor increased corporate monopoly, and it has not

neither exposed smaller banks to unfair competition, increased corporate monopoly, nor has it

[mohit_1607]

IMO E

[aman88]

IMO E

[imskpwr]

IMO E

Sorry, but this one is not the OA.

[apoorva.rattan]

IMO D. This seems to be a multiple parallelism problem.

Proponents of .....investment procedures not exposed smaller banks to unfair competition nor increased corporate monopoly, and it has not.

The reason I pick D instead of C is that AND usually denotes lists and creates parallelism. The use of a comma with AND when there are two long clauses also seems appropriate.

What is the OA ?

[basso25@]

I actually think it's the original sentence ("A"). Would love to get the OA, please - thanks.

[EducationAisle]

Options containing the "neither...nor.." idiomatic structure clearly have issues.

Look at this (hopefully easy to digest) sentence:

James has not prepared for the exam, nor has he bothered to take a look at the sample exam papers from last years.

[Lifetron]

Between C and D, I would go with C. I am not fully convinced, though ! D is more parallel but the nor in the first part jus doesn't seem right !

What's the source ?

[Lifetron]

I actually think it's the original sentence ("A"). Would love to get the OA, please - thanks.

"neither exposed smaller banks to unfair competition nor increased corporate monopoly, and also has not " - Redundancy

[ThinkAdmit]

Proponents of the recent banking law changes assert that federal deregulation of investment procedures has neither exposed smaller banks to unfair competition nor increased corporate monopoly, and also has not compromised the government's basic long-term commitment to the free market.

neither exposed smaller banks to unfair competition nor increased corporate monopoly, and also has not

neither exposed smaller banks to unfair competition or increased corporate monopoly or

not exposed smaller banks to unfair competition or increased corporate monopoly, nor has it

not exposed smaller banks to unfair competition nor increased corporate monopoly, and it has not

neither exposed smaller banks to unfair competition, increased corporate monopoly, nor has it

There are only these 3 idiomatic usages:
1. Either X or Y
2. X Or Y
3. neither X nor Y

X nor Y is incorrect.

By this logic, we eliminate all choices with standalone ..nor .. usage.
Eliminate C and D

The problem with A is "and also", redundancy.

The problem with B is "...neither .. or .. or..". Incorrect idiomatic expression.

We are left with E and E seems to be the right choice. The original sentence was misguiding us towards wrong parallel elements. E has corrected it.

Can you please quote the source of the question?

[Lifetron]

neither exposed smaller banks to unfair competition, increased corporate monopoly, nor has it

Even in E, I can't find a proper parallel structure...

You don't have 2 but 3 parts - exposed, increased and compromised

Can anyone comment on this ?

[ThinkAdmit]

neither exposed smaller banks to unfair competition, increased corporate monopoly, nor has it

Even in E, I can't find a proper parallel structure...

You don't have 2 but 3 parts - exposed, increased and compromised

Can anyone comment on this ?

Hi Gughan,

Actually there are 2 elements only.

Federal deregulation has
- neither exposed smaller banks to [unfair competition and increased monopoly] => "increased" is an adjective here unlike "exposed" and compromised", which are part of the list.
- nor compromised commitment

Hope this clarifies. And that is why I asked for the source, because the meaning conveyed should be as above, but neither choices seemed "perfect".

[imskpwr]

neither exposed smaller banks to unfair competition, increased corporate monopoly, nor has it

Even in E, I can't find a proper parallel structure...

You don't have 2 but 3 parts - exposed, increased and compromised

Can anyone comment on this ?

Hi Gughan,

Actually there are 2 elements only.

Federal deregulation has
- neither exposed smaller banks to [unfair competition and increased monopoly] => "increased" is an adjective here unlike "exposed" and compromised", which are part of the list.
- nor compromised commitment

Hope this clarifies. And that is why I asked for the source, because the meaning conveyed should be as above, but neither choices seemed "perfect".

OA is C.
can anyone explain why?

[Lifetron]

Hi imskpwr,

What's the source ? It doesn't look like a proper GMAT question. Discussing such questions will not only kill your time but also confuse you more.

However, this is what I felt while solving

neither exposed smaller banks to unfair competition nor increased corporate monopoly, and also has not - Redundancy

neither exposed smaller banks to unfair competition or increased corporate monopoly or - Bad Structure

not exposed smaller banks to unfair competition or increased corporate monopoly, nor has it - Got this thru POE.

not exposed smaller banks to unfair competition nor increased corporate monopoly, and it has not - I feel this to be wrong, 'or' would have been appropriate

neither exposed smaller banks to unfair competition, increased corporate monopoly, nor has it - No parallelism / No proper Neither...Nor structure [This option is very ambiguous]

[imskpwr]

Hi imskpwr,

What's the source ?

SOURCE: KAPLAN QUIZ BANK

Hi imskpwr,
It doesn't look like a proper GMAT question. Discussing such questions will not only kill your time but also confuse you more.

I cannot comment about the AUTHENTICITY of this q. It's better to have an expert from KAPLAN to clarify such things.