Despite what was hoped, the introduction of a sixty-five

Answer: E
*note: not necessary that 'nor' be used with 'neither'

+1 for E.
Here is the explanation:

A) reducing neither congestion on rural highways, or it is not contributing to save gas for trucking companies and less pollution--> wrong,it is neither ... nor.

B) reducing neither the congestion on rural highways nor is it contributing to lower gas costs for trucking companies, or to less pollution--> it doesnot makes sense with the clause after the second comma.

C) not reducing the congestion on rural highways nor is it contributing to save gas for trucking companies, and it is not lessening the pollution-->The use of and makes it wrong.

D) not reducing the congestion on rural highways, it is not contributing to savings on gas for trucking companies, it is less pollution-->for the argument to be true, idiomatically neither should be accompanied by nor.hence this one is wrong.

E) not reducing congestion on rural highways, nor is it contributing to lower gas costs for truck companies or less pollution--> this one is correct.



Consider giving me kudos, if u like my post!!

"E) not reducing congestion on rural highways, nor is it contributing to lower gas costs for truck companies or less pollution--> this one is correct. "

But what you suggest is: neither A nor B or C.

Shouldn't it be: neither A nor B nor C??

E) not reducing congestion on rural highways, nor is it contributing to lower gas costs for truck companies or less pollution

I see that this choice violates parallelism. it should've been "nor contributing" if it is to be parallel to "not reducing"

Despite what was hoped, the introduction of a sixty-five mile per hour speed limit is reducing neither congestion on rural highways, or it is not contributing to save gas for trucking companies and less pollution from the decreased amount of time trucks spend on the road.


A) reducing neither congestion on rural highways, or it is not contributing to save gas for trucking companies and less pollution

B) reducing neither the congestion on rural highways nor is it contributing to lower gas costs for trucking companies, or to less polluting

C) not reducing the congestion on rural highways nor is it contributing to save gas for trucking companies, and it is not lessening the pollution

D) not reducing the congestion on rural highways, it is not contributing to savings on gas for trucking companies, it is less pollution

E) not reducing congestion on rural highways, nor is it contributing to {lower gas costs for truck companies or less pollution}

In C, the use of "and" changes the meaning.
But regardless of this error, one thing that I noticed is that in E, we are talking about "gas costs", whereas in the original choie we are talking about its "amount".
Hasn't the answer choice E deviated from the sense?

Not really.
The meaning of the sentence is : The hope was to get following benefits by imposing speed limit : 1. reduced congestion 2. lowered gas consumption 3. reduced pollution. But none of these has happened.
Actually apart from meaning, only E retains the grammatical structure. Notice C has three elements connected with not, nor, and. While in E there are 2 elements connected with not-nor and second elements itself has 2 elements connected with or. Perfectly done.

Therefore Ans E it is.

I don't have any problem with the grammatical construction of E. The only think that is bothering me here is the use of "gas costs". We were originally concerned with the saving of gas.

Logically both mean same things isnt it? If you are saving gas your are saving gas cost. Not everyone is environmentalist but still wants a car with better mileage?

GMATNinja,
GMATNinjaTwo
daagh

Please help on C vs E.

Flawed question.

Contribute to + noun is correct. The preposition "to" after contribute is not the same "to" you see in an infinite - it is a preposition that requires a noun as the object of preposition. - Contribute to + verb is wrong. The mistake is similar to the following that we often use at the end of a letter:

Looking forward to see you... wrong. ("looking forward to" requires a noun.)
Looking forward to seeing you.... correct. (gerund "seeing" is a noun and is hence alright)

Similarly "contribute to" requires a noun - usage of gerund "lowering" instead of verb "lower" is required.

Despite what was hoped, the introduction of a sixty-five mile per hour speed limit is reducing neither congestion on rural highways, or it is not contributing to save gas for trucking companies and less pollution from the decreased amount of time trucks spend on the road.


A) reducing neither congestion on rural highways, or it is not contributing to save gas for trucking companies and less pollution

B) reducing neither the congestion on rural highways nor is it contributing to lower gas costs for trucking companies, or to less polluting

C) not reducing the congestion on rural highways nor is it contributing to save gas for trucking companies, and it is not lessening the pollution

D) not reducing the congestion on rural highways, it is not contributing to savings on gas for trucking companies, it is less pollution
--> completely a run-on sentence.

E) not reducing congestion on rural highways, nor is it contributing to lower gas costs for truck companies or less pollution
--> correct.

I am definitely not an expert by any means ..... but, this is what I think:

Neither X nor Y .... is a classic idiomatic contraction. But, 'nor' not always warrants for a 'neither' ( But, Neither needs a nor ).Now when 'nor' is not accompanied with a neither , a clause follows nor. The verb is repeated after the nor.

Keeping the aforementioned in mind and following the ll-list ..... we can eliminate A,B & D.
Now, C is eliminated as we have used 2 single word markers to represent 3 elements ( in ll-ism)
In E ..... the construction is X is not reducing ...... nor is it contributing ...( lower gas cost ll less pollution) [is not reducing ll is it contributing]

For E "or less pollution" - doesn't this sound odd?

not reducing congestion on rural highways, nor is it contributing to lower gas costs for truck companies or less pollution-

Doesn't "lower gas costs" mentioned in option E change the meaning of original sentence?

This question is based on Idiomatic Usage and Construction.

Option A contains the conjunction ‘nor’ but it is paired with the conjunction ‘or’; this combination is inappropriate. The idiomatically appropriate pair is neither-nor. Since this option lacks parallelism, Option A can be eliminated.

This option contains the appropriate pair of conjunctions. However, the option still lacks parallelism because the conjunction ‘neither’ is followed by the noun ‘the congestion’ and ‘nor’ is followed by the verb ‘is’. So, Option B can be eliminated.

Option C is wordy. The conjunction ‘nor’ implies two alternatives; however, in this option, there is a third result conveyed by the use of the conjunction ‘and’; this construction distorts the meaning. So, Option C can be eliminated.

Option D has the error of comma splice. Separating independent clauses with a comma is called the error of comma splice. In Option D, there are three independent clauses:
-Despite what was hoped, the introduction of a sixty-five mile per hour speed limit is reducing the congestion on rural highways
-it is not contributing to savings on gas for trucking companies
- it is less pollution from the decreased amount of time trucks spend on the road
So, Option D can be eliminated.

Option E conveys the intended meaning that the two results that were hoped for by the introduction of a sixty-five mile per hour speed limit have not taken place - reducing congestion on rural highways and contributing to lower gas costs for truck companies or less pollution. Therefore, E is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.

I don't think any of the given options is correct.

Regarding the option E, I don't think Not...Nor combination is correct. Instead the combination should be Not....Or.

Moreover, even if ignore the above rule. Still the option E violates the ||ism. While "Not" is followed by a verb "reducing", "Nor" is followed by a clause.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.