weird parallelism: expert's opinion will be appreciated

imskpwr wrote: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

GMATGuruNY wrote:

imskpwr wrote: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

I received a PM requesting that I comment.

Neither means not one or the other.
Neither should serve to refer only to TWO things.
In the SC above, THREE actions are being discussed: exposed, increased, compromised.
Thus, the use of neither in A, B and E is inappropriate.
Eliminate A, B and E.

In D, not...nor...and is unidiomatic.
Eliminate D.

The correct answer is C.

The OA employs the following idiom: not X or Y, nor Z.
This idiom is appropriate for a list of three things:
Federal regulation has not EXPOSED or INCREASED, nor has it COMPROMISED.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

imskpwr wrote: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

I received a PM requesting that I comment.

Neither means not one or the other.
Neither should serve to refer only to TWO things.
In the SC above, THREE actions are being discussed: exposed, increased, compromised.
Thus, the use of neither in A, B and E is inappropriate.
Eliminate A, B and E.

In D, not...nor...and is unidiomatic.
Eliminate D.

The correct answer is C.

The OA employs the following idiom: not X or Y, nor Z.
This idiom is appropriate for a list of three things:
Federal regulation has not EXPOSED or INCREASED, nor has it COMPROMISED.

Proponents of the recent banking law changes assert that federal deregulation of investment procedures
has
not exposed smaller banks to unfair competition or increased corporate monopoly,
nor has it compromised the government's basic long-term commitment to the free market.

Mechmeera wrote:As per the rule of parallelism, has is making the sentence incorrect as parallelism is flawed........
even nor is not followed by verb as in case of not exposed or increased.