In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Concepts tested here: Tenses + Parallelism + Idioms

• “not just A…but also B" is a correct idiomatic construction; A and B must be parallel.
• The simple present continuous tense is used to refer to actions that are currently ongoing and continuous in nature.
• Information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense.
• The present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present.

A: This answer choice fails to maintain parallelism between “because of more expensive drugs” and “by the fact that doctors are writing...drugs”; remember, any elements joined by a conjunction (“but” in this sentence) must be parallel. Further, Option A fails to maintain the idiomatic construction “not just A…but also B”, as it omits the word “also”; remember, “not just A…but also B" is a correct idiomatic construction; A and B must be parallel.

B: Correct. This answer choice correctly uses the simple present tense verb phrase “is explained” to refer to information that is permanent in nature. Moreover, Option B correctly uses the simple present continuous tense verb “are writing” to refer to an action that is currently ongoing and continuous in nature. Further, Option B correctly uses the idiomatic construction “not just A (“by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive” but also B (“by the fact that doctors are writing...drugs”)”, maintaining parallelism between A and B.

C: This answer choice fails to maintain parallelism between “because of drugs that are becoming more expensive” and “because of doctors having also written...drugs”; remember, any elements joined by a conjunction (“but” in this sentence) must be parallel. Further, Option C incorrectly uses the past participle phrase “having...written” to refer to an action that is currently ongoing and continuous in nature; please remember, the simple present continuous tense is used to refer to actions that are currently ongoing and continuous in nature. Moreover, Option C incorrectly uses the present participle (“verb+ing” – “occurring” in this sentence) to refer to information that is permanent in nature; please remember, information that is permanent in nature is best conveyed through the simple present tense. Additionally, Option C fails to maintain the idiomatic construction “not just A…but also B”, due to its placement of “also”; remember, “not just A…but also B" is the correct idiomatic construction; A and B must be parallel.

D: This answer choice fails to maintain the idiomatic construction “not just A…but also B”, due to its placement of “also”; remember, “not just A…but also B" is the correct idiomatic construction; A and B must be parallel.

E: This answer choice incorrectly uses the present perfect tense verb “have…written” to refer to an action that is currently ongoing and continuous in nature; remember, the simple present continuous tense is used to refer to actions that are ongoing and continuous in nature, and the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present. Further, Option E fails to maintain parallelism between “because of more expensive drugs” and “doctors have also written...drugs”; remember, any elements joined by a conjunction (“but” in this sentence) must be parallel. Additionally, Option E fails to maintain the idiomatic construction “not just A…but also B”, due to its placement of “also”; remember, “not just A…but also B" is the correct idiomatic construction; A and B must be parallel.

Hence, B is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Present Perfect Tense" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Only one that seems acceptable is B.

A. a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing
because of / by the fact that

C. a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written
Mixture of tenses

D. which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing
Mixture of tenses / needs "also because" before doctors

E. which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written
"because doctors have also written" instead of "also because doctors have written"

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs,
a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are
writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

below is the correct choice:

a phenomenon that is explained not just by the
fact that drugs are becoming more expensive
but also by the fact that doctors are writing



MY question is : regarding the subordinate clause in this question:

1. a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing

a phenomenon ...should start a subordinate clause(because it is after comma ),but I cannot find the verb after a phenomenon (the subject and verb are inside "THAT" clause)


2. but also by the fact that doctors are writing

but ...should start a subordinate clause ..here also no subject and verb (the subj and verb are inside "THAT"clause)

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

This is an example of "appositive modifier". This kind of modifier refer to either a specific noun or to the whole concept of the preceding clause; here because "a phenomenon" is an abstract noun we are in the second scenario, hence this modifier will refer to the whole clause.

1) Yes, it does have a verb
a phenomenon that is explained not just by the

2)Yes, there is a verb
but also by the fact that doctors are writing

the construct of the sentence is: a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that X but also by the fact that Y.

Hope it's clear

i am still confused about a modifying phrase.

I do understand what EducationAisle said.

For the example given, "I am studying GMAT, a competitive exam that is hard to crack." The modifying phrase "a competitive exam that is hard to crack" is modifying GMAT.
However, in this example, a phenomenon that.... is not modifying prescription drugs but the entire sentence. How is this correct? Can you give examples similar to this?

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

Hello hyoeun87, you are correct. The intent of the example was to illustrate that a competitive exam that is hard to crack is a phrase and not a clause (as was the perception of the user earlier).


Indeed, and this is a very common structure, extensively tested on GMAT. Few official examples from the Official Verbal supplement:

#75: Scientists have observed large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits in the upper twenty centimeters of sediments from the Baltic Sea, findings consistent with the growth of industrial activity in the area.
- Absolute modifier findings consistent with... modifying the entire previous clause.

#100: Sixty-five million years ago, according to some scientists, an asteroid bigger than Mount Everest slammed into North America, an event that caused the plant and animal extinctions that mark the end of the geologic era known as the Cretaceous Period.
- Absolute modifier an event that caused.... modifying the entire previous clause.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses Absolute modifiers, its application and examples in significant detail. If someone is interested, PM me your email-id, I can mail the corresponding section.

dear experts,
I am confused with absolute phrase and appositive phrase.

any expert can point out how to distinguish these two different modifiers?

I compared these two modifiers, I figured out that absolute phrase can be placed anywhere of the sentence, while appositive phrase only followed a noun which will be modified.

is this way valid?
is any other way to approach?
how to distinguish these two modifiers?

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~

Absolute phrases have the following structure: noun + noun modifier. They modify the whole clause in some way.
I have heard about the event just yesterday, the event that rocked the nation. (noun = event, noun modifier= that rocked the nation - modifies the whole clause)

Appositives consists of just a noun (or a noun phrase). Appositives are noun modifiers (i.e. a noun modifying another noun).
Tommy, my little brother, has done this. (noun phrase = my little brother - no modifier for my little brother - modifies Tommy)

Option D and E can also be knocked-out because of the incorrect use of 'Which' ..... which is modifying the drugs

Is that correct or Which is somehow magically modifying increase in spending on prescription drugs ...

Please explain

Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one problem at a time, and narrow it down to the correct answer! First, here is the original question with any major differences between the options highlighted in orange:

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

(A) a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing
(B) a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing
(C) a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written
(D) which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing
(E) which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written

While there are a lot of differences between the options, there are a couple glaring differences we can focus on to start:

1. not just... / but... (Idioms)
2. are writing / having also written / are also writing / have also written (verb tense & meaning)

Let's start with #1 on our list: idiom structure. Here is a quick breakdown of the idiom we're using here, and which forms of it are acceptable:

not just X, but also Y = GOOD
not just X, but Y = GOOD

Remember that in any idiom that includes X and Y, they both MUST use parallel structure! Let's take a closer look at each option, and rule out any that don't use the idiom or parallelism correctly:

(A) a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing --> NOT PARALLEL

(B) a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing --> PARALLEL

(C) a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written --> PARALLEL

(D) which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing --> NOT PARALLEL

(E) which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written --> NOT PARALLEL

We can eliminate options A, D, & E because they don't use parallel structure within the idiom we're using here.

Now that we've narrowed it down to only 2 options, let's tackle #2 on our list: verb tense & meaning. Read over each option carefully, and make sure that the meaning is clear and logical:

(B) a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing

This is CORRECT! The idiom "not just X, but also Y" is used correctly and has parallel structure throughout. The verb "are writing" is also clear and makes sense here logically.

(C) a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written

This is INCORRECT. While the idiom is used correctly, and it uses parallel structure, there's a problem with the verb at the end. By adding in the word "also," the sentence now suggests that the doctors did more than one thing - but we don't know what the other thing is! WHAT did they do in addition to writing prescriptions? It's unclear, so let's rule this out because it's not logical to say doctors "also" did something when we only see one action in the sentence.


There you have it - option B is the correct choice! By focusing on the simple, yet obvious differences first, we were able to narrow down our options significantly to make the process go quickly!


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.

I am not able to understand the logic behind.
Why is ghe use of which being neglected.
How is D not parallel?

Posted from my mobile device

Thank you for your questions jbatra!

Let's dive in:

1. Why is the use of which being neglected.

The difference between starting the phrase with "which" or "a phenomenon" doesn't actually matter - both would work, as long as they follow the idiom and verb rules correctly later on. Sometimes, the GMAT throws these false "either/or" splits into sentences to distract you from the real issues. If you find yourself spending a lot of time trying to figure out what the problem is, it might not be a problem at all. However, if we focus on the idiom and verb differences, those are easier to spot and lead to elimination.

2. How is D not parallel?

(D) which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing

Idiom: not just X, but Y
X = because drugs are becoming more expensive
Y = doctors are also writing...

This is not parallel because both parts need to start with "because" (or not have it at all) for the phrases to be parallel.

I hope that clears things up! Feel free to tag us at EMPOWERgmatVerbal if you have any other follow-up questions. We're happy to help!

A. 'because of' and 'by the fact' are not parallel. (Note that not just X but Y is a variation of not only X but Y)
B. Correct Answer. 'Not just by' and 'but by' are parallel. Continuous forms 'becoming' and 'writing' used correctly.
C. "because of drugs + Modifier" (Modifier = that are becoming) - this seems to say that the phenomenon is occurring because of drugs - not the intended meaning. Also note that this option states that ONLY some drugs are becoming more expensive. Not the original meaning. The usage of "also" is incorrect. This usage leads to the question - what else did they write? - to warrant the use of also. Also, "having written" implies a prior action in a sequence of events. Where is the other action?
D. 'which' incorrectly modifies ‘drugs’. 'Not just because' and 'but doctors are' are not parallel.
E. ‘which’ incorrectly modifies ‘drugs’. The use of ‘written’ is incorrect.

Hope this helps!

For those of you who are still not sure why it is correct to use events in present to explain a past phenomena here is the explanation I found in Chiranjeev Singh's website: If those ideas were true in the past and are still true, then you can use present tense. Consider these two sentences from my notebook ( I cannot remember where I got these from but think could be from Manhattan Prep forum).

1) In 1987, Smith discovered that river was full of pollution. (River is not full of pollution now)
2) In 1987, Smith discovered that river is full of pollution. (River is still full of pollution).

In this question, it is still true that drugs 'are becoming more expensive' and 'doctors are writing' just like in the example #2 above.

HEY SIR,

I get the meaning issue but could not understand why C & E are not parallel with" not just X But Y " construction...
C&E - Not just because ... but also because...

Would be great if you could clear this out!
BillyZ

Hello Merc,

Although your doubt is not addressed to us, here is the explanation.

Choice C: a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written: Firstly, the meaning that the expression "not just X but Y" conveys is illogical, and you understand it as well. Now, the entities X and Y are grammatically parallel because of their structure but grammatical parallelism is not enough for a list to be correct. The list MUST also be logical. The list in this choice is not logical. Hence, the grammatical parallelism does not work in this choice.


Choice E: which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written: Firstly, the usage of the noun modifier "which" to modify the action in the preceding clause is incorrect. Secondly, the phrase not just because is followed by a phrase while "but because" is followed by a clause. Please note that both the structures following the word "because" can very well be written in the same grammatical structure. Therefore, their current different structures violate the grammatical parallelism between them.



Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha