Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 01:43 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 01:43

Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 23 Dec 2012
Status:getting there
Posts: 29
Own Kudos [?]: 22 [4]
Given Kudos: 131
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Tuck '16
Send PM
Alum
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4341
Own Kudos [?]: 51449 [0]
Given Kudos: 2326
Location: United States (WA)
Concentration: Leadership, General Management
Schools: Ross '20 (M)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42 (Online)
GPA: 3.8
WE:Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Send PM
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 23 Dec 2012
Status:getting there
Posts: 29
Own Kudos [?]: 22 [1]
Given Kudos: 131
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Tuck '16
Send PM
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4347
Own Kudos [?]: 30789 [4]
Given Kudos: 635
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
bluemints wrote:
Hey Shraddha,

Moreover, please refer to this sentence in the Sydney Morning Herald's environment section
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/clima ... 2bayh.html

Between 2000 and 2010, the report said, the $10.7 billion ski and snowboarding industry, with centers in 38 states and which employs 187,000 people directly or indirectly, lost $1.07 billion in revenue when comparing each state's best snowfall years with its worst snowfall years


E>A grammatically but not sure about the meaning aspect.


Since discussion on this question is happening concurrently on BTG as well, I am posting Payal's response on BTG over here so that GMAT Clubbers can benefit from it.

This construction is not correct. We cannot have a phrase parallel to a clause. In fact there are multiple ways of making this list parallel, such as:

1: Ski and snowboarding industry, with centers in 38 states and employing 187,000 people (Here both entities are phrases)
2: Ski and snowboarding industry, which has centers in 38 states and employs 187,000 people (Here both entities are clauses)

Just an interesting side note – This sentence also appears in nytimes here. In fact both publications have the same article. It was published just a day before the article on Sydney Morning Herald was published. Not sure if there is a tie up between these two publications. But regardless of that - carefully notice the list in the nytimes article. It uses the correct parallel construction per option 1 above.

Again, it is possible that this was just a publishing error or an error that did not get caught through the editorial process. Happens, after all “To err is Human”
:)
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4347
Own Kudos [?]: 30789 [2]
Given Kudos: 635
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
dentobizz wrote:
Quote:
@dentobizz - you could figure out the parallelism error in choice A but you still marked choice A as the correct answer since you felt that the construction of choice E was not correct. I hope my explanation above helps you clarify that doubt.

Hi Shraddha,
Thanks for posting both challenging questions and the explanations
But I still feel that Placement of 'between 2000 to 2010' after 'lost' makes the meaning ambiguous. LOST b/w 2000-2010 dollars?? people?? no quantifier is mentioned

if it were 'between the year 2000 to 2010' then it would have been clear.

That why I didn't choose E since I didn't feel it was the best option

Do we choose E just because the other 4 options are grammatically inaccurate?

Thanks

{Since discussion on this question is happening concurrently on BTG as well, I am posting Payal's response on BTG over here so that GMAT Clubbers can benefit from it.}

When we read the original sentence, we infer or understand the intended meaning of the sentence. We make sure that we understand the function or role played by every entity in the sentence. So in this case, when we read Choice A, we know that "Between 2000 and 2010" refers to the year "2000 and 2010". It is understood from the context of the sentence. So yes - by explicitly stating the noun "year" before 2000 and 2010 will make things absolutely clear.
But the way this phrase has been used in choice A, there is no ambiguity about the fact that we are talking about years 2000 and 2010, or the time between these two years.

In fact, you will find several references in OG in which whenever a certain year is specified, it is not preceded by the word "year". Let's take a couple here:

OG13 Question 77 - Choice A (Incorrect)
A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

In this sentence, concentrate on the non-underlined portion "A 1972 agreement". Even though the sentence does not explicitly state "An agreement written in 1972" or "An agreement written in the year 1972", the logical interpretation is that 1972 agreement implies that this agreement was written in the year 1972.

Here is another one:
OG13 Question 9 - Choice C (Incorrect)
In 1979 lack of rain reduced India's rice production to about 41 million tons, nearly 25 percent less than those of the 1978 harvest.

(A) less than those of the 1978 harvest

(B) less than the 1978 harvest

(C) less than 1978

(D) fewer than 1978

(E) fewer than that of India's 1978 harvest


In this sentence it is absolutely clear that 1979 and 1978 are the years. But for a moment, let’s apply your logic on the correct sentence here - choice B. The 1978 harvest could imply “the 1978 million tons harvest”. i.e. 1978 could actually present the quantity of harvest (yes the Math will not add up here!!). But see that that would not be the most logical interpretation.

These official references should clarify the logical interpretation of the "2000” & “2010" in your mind. So basically follow your logical thinking. I think you may have been overthinking this aspect.

Now let’s come back to the question in discussion. So now that you have analyzed the original sentence and you know that "between 2000 and 2010" describes the time frame of the verb "lost", you review the remaining choices and make sure that the placement of this modifier does not result in any illogical meaning. i.e. between 2000 and 2010 should not provide timing of anything else except the intended modified entity "lost". Notice that the key thing here is that the function of this phrase is to present timing. Its function will not change to presenting some other quantity just because now it is placed at a different location.

Take Away – Follow your logical thought process!
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4347
Own Kudos [?]: 30789 [1]
Given Kudos: 635
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
souvik101990 wrote:
A math book with diagrammatic representations and which explains all the concepts lucidly is a good math text book.
I somehow would incline to agree that this sentence is parallel.


Good discussion souvik101990!

The above construction is not considered correct in written English. A phrase cannot be made parallel to a clause. Let's consider a few official questions to understand this point:

OG13 Question # 46

In ancient Thailand, much of the local artisans’ creative energy was expended for the creation of Buddha images and when they constructed and decorated the temples that enshrined them.

For the sake of this discussion, we will only focus on the parallelism aspect of this sentence. The list is as follows:
Creative energy was expended
1: for the creation of Buddha images
2: when they constructed and decorated the temples that enshrined them

The list above presents the tasks on which the creative energy was expended. Clearly the list is not parallel since phrase has been made parallel to clause. In fact the Official Explanation clearly states " clause introduces faulty parallelism".

OG13 Question # 13
There are several ways to build solid walls using just mud or clay, but the most extensively used method has been the forming of bricks out of mud or clay, and, after some preliminary air drying or sun drying, they are laid in the wall in mud mortar.

Once again, we will only focus on the parallelism aspect of this incorrect choice. And without going into too many details here, I will quote official explanation here "the active gerund phrase the forming of bricks does not fit with the passive verb phrase that follows (they are are laid)"

So essentially you cannot make a phrase parallel to a clause. I hope this addresses your confusion.

Regards,
Shraddha
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 404
Own Kudos [?]: 1833 [0]
Given Kudos: 370
GPA: 3.5
WE:Business Development (Health Care)
Send PM
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
egmat wrote:
bluemints wrote:
Hey Shraddha,

Moreover, please refer to this sentence in the Sydney Morning Herald's environment section
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/clima ... 2bayh.html

Between 2000 and 2010, the report said, the $10.7 billion ski and snowboarding industry, with centers in 38 states and which employs 187,000 people directly or indirectly, lost $1.07 billion in revenue when comparing each state's best snowfall years with its worst snowfall years


E>A grammatically but not sure about the meaning aspect.


Since discussion on this question is happening concurrently on BTG as well, I am posting Payal's response on BTG over here so that GMAT Clubbers can benefit from it.

This construction is not correct. We cannot have a phrase parallel to a clause. In fact there are multiple ways of making this list parallel, such as:

1: Ski and snowboarding industry, with centers in 38 states and employing 187,000 people (Here both entities are phrases)
2: Ski and snowboarding industry, which has centers in 38 states and employs 187,000 people (Here both entities are clauses)

Just an interesting side note –This sentence also appears in nytimes here. In fact both publications have the same article. It was published just a day before the article on Sydney Morning Herald was published. Not sure if there is a tie up between these two publications. But regardless of that - carefully notice the list in the nytimes article. It uses the correct parallel construction per option 1 above.

Again, it is possible that this was just a publishing error or an error that did not get caught through the editorial process. Happens, after all “To err is Human” :)



Agree it does look like a publishing/editing error
here's the article https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/us/cl ... wanted=all

Thnks
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 23 Dec 2012
Status:getting there
Posts: 29
Own Kudos [?]: 22 [1]
Given Kudos: 131
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Tuck '16
Send PM
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
1
Kudos
bluemints wrote:
Hey Shraddha,

I could pick up the the //m error in A but I thought that E has some what more erroneous modifier placement which (I felt) didn't state the intended meaning clearly
so went with the best available option ie A

Moreover, please refer to this sentence in the Sydney Morning Herald's environment section
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/clima ... 2bayh.html

Between 2000 and 2010, the report said, the $10.7 billion ski and snowboarding industry, with centers in 38 states and which employs 187,000 people directly or indirectly, lost $1.07 billion in revenue when comparing each state's best snowfall years with its worst snowfall years


E>A grammatically but not sure about the meaning aspect.



Thank you Sharadha and Payal for ending the suspense over this one.Kudos for the explanation
Surprising typo/ printing mistake by the Sydney Morning Herald guy's.

@dentobizz -good questions & discussion on the other forum and I am posting the nyt article link below that you gave there regarding parallelism (Hope you don't mind) .The article is pretty informative, nice find doc :-D

an article that discusses similar parallelism errors including this one
https://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... roblems-2/
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
Posts: 404
Own Kudos [?]: 1833 [1]
Given Kudos: 370
GPA: 3.5
WE:Business Development (Health Care)
Send PM
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
1
Kudos
bluemints wrote:

@dentobizz -good questions & discussion on the other forum and I am posting the nyt article link below that you gave there regarding parallelism (Hope you don't mind) .The article is pretty informative, nice find doc :-D

an article that discusses similar parallelism errors including this one
https://afterdeadline.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... roblems-2/


Oh no! I am terribly upset because you posted the link ...

lol :P ......j/k Happy you shared it here , its always good to share info
Alum
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4341
Own Kudos [?]: 51449 [0]
Given Kudos: 2326
Location: United States (WA)
Concentration: Leadership, General Management
Schools: Ross '20 (M)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42 (Online)
GPA: 3.8
WE:Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Send PM
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
Expert Reply
egmat wrote:
souvik101990 wrote:
A math book with diagrammatic representations and which explains all the concepts lucidly is a good math text book.
I somehow would incline to agree that this sentence is parallel.


Good discussion souvik101990!

The above construction is not considered correct in written English. A phrase cannot be made parallel to a clause. Let's consider a few official questions to understand this point:

OG13 Question # 46

In ancient Thailand, much of the local artisans’ creative energy was expended for the creation of Buddha images and when they constructed and decorated the temples that enshrined them.

For the sake of this discussion, we will only focus on the parallelism aspect of this sentence. The list is as follows:
Creative energy was expended
1: for the creation of Buddha images
2: when they constructed and decorated the temples that enshrined them

The list above presents the tasks on which the creative energy was expended. Clearly the list is not parallel since phrase has been made parallel to clause. In fact the Official Explanation clearly states " clause introduces faulty parallelism".

OG13 Question # 13
There are several ways to build solid walls using just mud or clay, but the most extensively used method has been the forming of bricks out of mud or clay, and, after some preliminary air drying or sun drying, they are laid in the wall in mud mortar.

Once again, we will only focus on the parallelism aspect of this incorrect choice. And without going into too many details here, I will quote official explanation here "the active gerund phrase the forming of bricks does not fit with the passive verb phrase that follows (they are are laid)"

So essentially you cannot make a phrase parallel to a clause. I hope this addresses your confusion.

Regards,
Shraddha


Probably one of the best discussions I had on this forum :-)
Kudos e-GMAT!
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4347
Own Kudos [?]: 30789 [1]
Given Kudos: 635
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
You are most welcome Souvik. We owe this to the quality of participation that we have on this forum. We will be posting more questions this weekend. Also check out the fresh questions that we have posted on CR
two-critical-reasoning-questions-hot-and-fresh-from-e-gmat-146133.html.

Regards,

Shraddha
Retired Moderator
Joined: 27 Aug 2012
Posts: 1015
Own Kudos [?]: 4054 [0]
Given Kudos: 156
Send PM
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
egmat wrote:
souvik101990 wrote:
A math book with diagrammatic representations and which explains all the concepts lucidly is a good math text book.
I somehow would incline to agree that this sentence is parallel.


Good discussion souvik101990!

The above construction is not considered correct in written English. A phrase cannot be made parallel to a clause. Let's consider a few official questions to understand this point:

OG13 Question # 46

In ancient Thailand, much of the local artisans’ creative energy was expended for the creation of Buddha images and when they constructed and decorated the temples that enshrined them.

For the sake of this discussion, we will only focus on the parallelism aspect of this sentence. The list is as follows:
Creative energy was expended
1: for the creation of Buddha images
2: when they constructed and decorated the temples that enshrined them

The list above presents the tasks on which the creative energy was expended. Clearly the list is not parallel since phrase has been made parallel to clause. In fact the Official Explanation clearly states " clause introduces faulty parallelism".

OG13 Question # 13
There are several ways to build solid walls using just mud or clay, but the most extensively used method has been the forming of bricks out of mud or clay, and, after some preliminary air drying or sun drying, they are laid in the wall in mud mortar.

Once again, we will only focus on the parallelism aspect of this incorrect choice. And without going into too many details here, I will quote official explanation here "the active gerund phrase the forming of bricks does not fit with the passive verb phrase that follows (they are are laid)"

So essentially you cannot make a phrase parallel to a clause. I hope this addresses your confusion.

Regards,
Shraddha



Hi Shraddha,
For OG13 Question # 13 : Option D is correct definitely from parallelism aspect.

But,I'm bit confused as far as the meaning of the sentence is concerned.
I think bricks are formed from mud or clay but 'to form mud or clay into bricks' as mentioned in option D,don't you think it's illogical ? We convert mud or clay into bricks but don't form them into bricks I believe.So can you please shed some light on this.

Appreciate your comments.
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2013
Posts: 100
Own Kudos [?]: 70 [0]
Given Kudos: 27
Send PM
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
thank you e gmat expert.

it is great that we focus on meaning because gmat test the logic.

Hoever, I have problem understanding the meaning when reading only the original choice.

understanding the intended meaning when reading only the original sentence is a painfull process. Do you have any skill for this step?

one question more.

there are some sc problems all of which is underlined and which contain many new words. this shows the misplaced modifers problem will be tested. However, there are many new words and this make it hard to understand the meaning. finally, we can not realize which modifier should modifies which entities. do you have any skill for this situation? thank you
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 May 2013
Status:Persevering
Posts: 114
Own Kudos [?]: 231 [0]
Given Kudos: 34
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Leadership
GMAT Date: 08-02-2013
GPA: 3.7
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
E because

The $10.7 billion ski and snowboarding industry, which has centers in 38 states and employs 187,000 people directly or indirectly, lost, between 2000 and 2010,20 dollars.

read simply as : Industry x lost 20 dollars (rest all is fluff)
User avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 16 Jul 2014
Posts: 19
Own Kudos [?]: 117 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Location: United Arab Emirates
Send PM
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
Hi egmat

I recall reading in mahattan SC guide that two parallel clauses start with the same subordinator to remove ambiguity.

The correct option here uses "which has centers in 38 states and employs 187,000 people directly or indirectly, "

Please correct me if i am wrong, but I believe that it should be " which has centers in 38 states and which employs 187,000 people directly or indirectly, "

Thanks for sharing your knowledge on this Forum. Your post's are nothing short of Excellent :)
Manager
Manager
Joined: 18 Feb 2018
Posts: 95
Own Kudos [?]: 27 [0]
Given Kudos: 90
Location: India
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
Send PM
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
LightYagami wrote:
Hi egmat

I recall reading in mahattan SC guide that two parallel clauses start with the same subordinator to remove ambiguity.

The correct option here uses "which has centers in 38 states and employs 187,000 people directly or indirectly, "

Please correct me if i am wrong, but I believe that it should be " which has centers in 38 states and which employs 187,000 people directly or indirectly, "

Thanks for sharing your knowledge on this Forum. Your post's are nothing short of Excellent :)


egmat:

I have the same question. Shouldn't the sentence be : Industry X, which has Y and which employs Z, lost.....
Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Aug 2017
Posts: 6
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 16
Send PM
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
Can you explain in detail the difference between phrase modifier and a clause modifier?
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
Hi Shraddha

I have a doubt in option e:
Here 'between 2000 and 2010' have been written between commas and as per the rules anything written between commas provides extra information that can be skipped, but as per the question it seems between 2000 and 2010 seems important part as it provides the timelines.
So putting it between commas in option e won't change the original meaning by making it extra info and not imp information
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Dec 2018
Posts: 425
Own Kudos [?]: 43 [0]
Given Kudos: 738
Location: India
WE:Account Management (Hospitality and Tourism)
Send PM
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
AndrewN - I just have one silly question-

How in the correct option E the second parallel entity is a clause (S+V), as there is no "subject"..?

E. The $10.7 billion ski and snowboarding industry, which has centers in 38 states and employs 187,000 people directly or indirectly, lost, between 2000 and 2010,

employs 187,000 people directly or indirectly
verb = employees
subject = ??

which has centers in 38 states
verb = has
subject = which

egmat wrote:
Official Explanation

Sentence structure of Original Sentence


• Clause 1 - Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and snowboarding industry, with centers in 38 states and
• Clause 2 - which employs 187,000 people directly or indirectly,
• Clause 1 (contd.) - lost $1.07 billion in revenue, owing to the warming trend that forces half the nation’s ski areas to open late and almost half to close early.

Meaning of Original Sentence


• The sentence is about the ski and snowboarding industry.
• Certain characteristics of industry presented - # of centers and # people employed.
• This industry lost specific amount of money in revenue between 2000 and 2010.
• The reason for the loss in revenue has been specified as – warming trend that forces the ski areas to open late or close early.

Errors in the Original Sentence


• Clause 1 - Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and snowboarding industry, with centers in 38 states and
• Clause 2 - which employs 187,000 people directly or indirectly,
• Clause 1 (contd.) - lost $1.07 billion in revenue, owing to the warming trend that forces half the nation’s ski areas to open late and almost half to close early.

1: Parallelism error – “with” prepositional phrase modifier is not parallel to “which” relative clause modifier. Both should be either relative clause modifier or prepositional phrase modifier.

Answer Choice Analysis


A. Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and snowboarding industry, with centers in 38 states and which employs 187,000 people directly or indirectly, lost
Parallelism Error as discussed above.

B. The $10.7 billion ski and snowboarding industry, with centers in 38 states and employing 187,000 people directly or indirectly between 2000 and 2010, lost
Modifier Error – Highlighted modifier does not modify the action “lost”. It now implies that 187000 people were employed between the given time period. This results in change in meaning of the sentence.
Note that the parallelism error in choice A has been corrected. Both are phrase modifiers now. One is prepositional phrase modifier and the other is verb-ing modifier.

C. Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and snowboarding industry, which has centers in 38 states and which employs 187,000 people directly or indirectly, losing
SV Error – The main clause does not contain any verb. The subject “ski and snowboarding industry” does not have a verb. The verb “lost” in original sentence has been changed to non-verb form “losing”.

D. The $10.7 billion ski and snowboarding industry between 2000 and 2010, with centers in 38 states and employing 187,000 people directly or indirectly, losing
SV Error – As in choice C.
Modifier Error – The highlighted modifier instead of modifying the verb – lost - modifies the industry. It somehow implies that the sentence is about ski and snowboarding industry that existed between 2000 and 2010. This does not make sense. As such logically there is only one ski and snowboarding industry and not about the industry that was between a certain time period.

E. The $10.7 billion ski and snowboarding industry, which has centers in 38 states and employs 187,000 people directly or indirectly, lost, between 2000 and 2010,
Correct Choice


Take Away


1: Clause entity cannot be parallel to a phrase entity. There can be more than one ways to correct such a list. Write both in either phrase form or clause form.
2: Modifiers should be placed appropriately to modify the intended entity.

Regards,
Shraddha
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3512
Own Kudos [?]: 6858 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Pankaj0901 wrote:
AndrewN - I just have one silly question-

How in the correct option E the second parallel entity is a clause (S+V), as there is no "subject"..?

E. The $10.7 billion ski and snowboarding industry, which has centers in 38 states and employs 187,000 people directly or indirectly, lost, between 2000 and 2010,

employs 187,000 people directly or indirectly
verb = employees
subject = ??

which has centers in 38 states
verb = has
subject = which

Hello, Pankaj0901. I think you are looking to turn the relative clause into one that repeats which, as in, which A and which B. It is perfectly acceptable to allow the parallel items to be the verbs within the clause instead, which A and [which] B, without repeating the which. The two parallel items, then, are has and employs, both verbs. Typically, you will see a repetition of the clause marker if the second parallel item follows a lengthy first item or a phrase that may modify that first item. In other words, shorter clauses lend themselves to being understood without the need to repeat the clause marker.

I hope that proves useful to you. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Between 2000 and 2010, the $10.7 billion ski and [#permalink]
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne