samichange wrote:
I think ( I am not absolutely sure) that if there is a comma before AND, then the following clause must contain its own subject and verb; If there was no comma before AND then we are allowed to omit 'they'.
When we use comma + and then we need not be so concerned about parallelism but still it is better to have both the clauses on either side of AND parallel.
When we use and without comma then the questions needs to be parallel and we have to skip the subject in the clause after and.I say so, because I have come across the
OG question
intar-the-oldest-hispanic-theater-company-in-new-york-has-44445.html.
When you read the sentence, you will find what I say.
Intar, the oldest Hispanic theater company in New York, has moved away from the Spanish classics and
now it draws on the works both of contemporary Hispanic authors who live abroad and of those in the United States.
(A) now it draws on the works both of contemporary Hispanic authors who live abroad and of those
(B) now draws on the works of contemporary Hispanic authors, both those who live abroad and those who live
(C) it draws on the works of contemporary Hispanic authors now, both those living abroad and who live
(D) draws now on the works both of contemporary Hispanic authors living abroad and who are
(E) draws on the works now of both contemporary Hispanic authors living abroad and those
The OE
Grammatical construction; Idiom;
ParallelismThe pronoun it before the second verb results in an ungrammatical construction; removing the pronoun removes the error. The scope of those is unclear (authors, or contemporary Hispanic authors). The correct version of the sentence makes it clear that the company draws on the works of contemporary Hispanic authors who live in two different places. Those who live abroad is parallel to those who live in the United States
.A Because there is no comma after classics, the use of it creates an ungrammatical construction. The construction following both is unclear.B Correct. In this sentence, Intar is the subject of draws on; parallel constructions follow both . . . and
.C It creates an ungrammatical construction; those living abroad is not parallel to who live
.D The construction following both is not parallel to the construction following and
.E Now modifies the verb and should precede it. The parallelism of the both . . . and construction is violated.
I hope you find the above discussion interesting and helpful.
I am no expert but would prefer some expert opinion.
Dear
samichangeI'm happy to respond.
My friend, I will ask, when you cite a question, please cite the source. This question is from the
OG Verbal Review: in the 2016 edition, it is SC#100.
First of all, I will say: that comma rule is a strong stylistic preference, but it is NOT a mathematical black-and-white always-right vs. always-wrong kind of rule.
As I explained above to
honchos, if we have two verbs in parallel, often we would not have a comma separating the halves of the sentence, but if the first verb phrase is long and involves modifying subordinate clauses, then we might use the comma break for overall clarity in the structure of the sentence.
By contrast, if we have two clauses, we would almost always have the comma, unless the clauses are particularly short. Again, this is not a black-and-white rule. Remember that the GMAT SC does NOT test punctuation, and absolutely no answer choice will be totally right or totally wrong purely on the basic of punctuation.
In this particular sentence, in
(A), certainly the absence of the comma makes us suspicious. At best, a punctuation irregularity such as this is a kind of tip-off to look for other problems. Even with the comma, the version in
(A) would be choppy and wordy
(modified A):
Intar has moved away from the Spanish classics, and now it draws on the works . . . (B)
Intar has moved away from the Spanish classics and now draws on the works . . . Compared to the structure in
(B), the structure in
(A), even with the comma, would a bit wordier, a bit more indirect, a bit less powerful, a bit less elegant. Choosing the first could be appropriate in a sentence in which the two halves were quite distinct, a sentence in which we wanted to make a strong logical distinction between the first action and the second action and show how unrelated there were. That's not the case here, because we want to juxtapose the actions to show their contrast. Still, this is subtle, not quite enough to say definitely that
(A) is out and out wrong.
What really torpedoes
(A) is the logical flaw at the end. Think of this parallelism:
...
both
//of contemporary Hispanic authors who live abroad
and
//of those in the United StatesWe know what the sentence is trying to put in parallel are
(a) contemporary Hispanic authors who live abroad, and
(b) contemporary Hispanic authors in the United StatesThat's what the sentence is trying to say, but by putting such a strong separation between the two branches, each with its own prepositional phrase, the reference of the word "
those" is unclear. Grammatically, it could be read as "those in the United States", i.e. every single person who happens to be in the US. Grammatically, the sentence would be putting into parallel the "contemporary Hispanic authors who live abroad" with everyone who is in the US. That's 100% illogical, and not what the sentence is trying to say, but the poor grammatical construction leaves this possibility open. This is enough to say that
(A) is irredeemably wrong. Notice, incidentally, how much more elegantly
(B) handles the same parallelism, and with no ambiguity.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
Your posts are just awesome. I visit GC just to hunt for your comments on Verbal Questions
Well, I am in a bit of confusion here because the Manhattan Staff thinks of the same situation differently. This is the comment that I have got for the same.
Whereas you can't join two independent clauses without a comma in front of the "and", if there IS a comma in front of the "and" without it being paired with another comma earlier in the sentence, you MUST create an independent clause by including a subject after the "and". As with the other post of course, if Ron points out an official GMAT problem that violates this near-universal English grammar rule, I'll withdraw my claim.