livfcind wrote:
A recent New York Times editorial criticized the city???s election board for,
1. first of all, failing to replace outmoded voting machines prone to breakdowns
2. second, for failing to investigate allegations of corruption involving board members.
Doesn't the 'for' in the second sentence break the parallelism. The parallelism clearly starts after 'for' since 'first of all' is placed after that.
Hello,
livfcind. I think you forgot to
start 1. above with the word before
first of all, even though you had typed it just above:
for! With it added back in, you can better appreciate the parallel construct:
1.
for,
first of all,
failing to replace outmoded voting machines prone to breakdowns
2.
second,
for failing to investigate allegations of corruption involving board members
I have highlighted the part of each phrase that uses a different placement simply to bring up a point. In the first phrase,
first of all is interrupting, rather than introducing, but in the second,
second is introducing the phrase instead. For whatever reason grammar has come down to us the way it has, it would be unacceptable to make the two
perfectly parallel by altering the second phrase, as in,
2. for, second, failing to investigate allegations of corruption involving board members
The placement of
second in choice (E) above is always preferred. Meanwhile, the placement of the initial counting item,
first of all, is more flexible. It could come either before or after
for, but such a consideration falls outside the underlined portion of this particular question.
- Andrew