In 1972 votes were cast by fifty-five percent of the electorate

Hi Nevernevergiveup and chetan2u,
I've seen options in veritas/other preps that used semi-colon to seperate different incomplete sentences that shouldnt stand on their own. And such option was deemed correct by veritas. In fact in the explanation veritas said that it is not necessarily wrong to separate incompletes using semicolons. So if A is off solely on the semicolon ground, then i see inconsistency, but i guess something else must have nailed A.

I have no idea where you picked up the point that semicolon can be used to separate incomplete sentences but the information is incorrect. Here is some info from Manhattan GMAT Guides.

I get your explanations
Alright that's a misquote from me.. Veritas never said that.
Now chetan2u if you must choose btw this two, which will be your choice?
1. An answer choice where semicolon is rightly used to separate two complete sentences (each containing redundant words)
OR
2. Another answer choice that replaces the semicolon with a coma (with the redundancy removed)
They said that 2 must be chosen.
I'll have to go surf for that question and bring it to you.
They were actually saying that a grammatically wrong statement rightly separated by semicolon doesn't make it more right and that the other option that removed the grammatical error but committed the error of replacing the semicolon with a comma is actually the better option.
I dont know you if copy that.

Hi Nez,
yes , you will choose 2, if it joins the independent clauses with a conjunction, thus avoiding run on sentences..
example--
1) John is a great swimmer; he is a great athlete too.
2) John is a great swimmer and a great athlete..
Both are correct..

I'll just add some more points on ";"..
1) It can join two independent clauses, but the clauses should be related to each other.
2) It is also used in place of commas at some place to avoid confusion..
Searching for best food, he travelled to melbourne, australia; bangalore, India; and London, UK.
3) you cannot use semicolon to join two clauses in which one is a dependent clause..

Hi Chetan
Can you please explain why by is a must.
Can't the parallelism start after by. What I mean is this
In 1972 votes were cast by fifty-fie percent of the electorate, and in 1996 forty percent of the electorate
Parts in red are perfectly parallel preceded by preposition by.

I know I am wrong, just convince me how .
Also any solid stratergy to tackle these kind of questions; These kind of questions always throws me out.

Hi,
you can generally omit verbs in the form of was,is etc but not by..
had it been--
In 1972, % of voting was 55% and in 1976, 40%...
say I change the words a bit and give you a different sentence--
1) THis painting is made by Ram and Shyam.. its Ok
2) In 1992, the Wimbeldon was won by Boris Becker and in 1996, by pete Sampras..
----In 1992, the Wimbeldon was won by Boris Becker and in 1996, pete Sampras won it ...still ok
------In 1992, the Wimbeldon was won by Boris Becker and in 1996, pete Sampras.--It does not convey the message correctly

In 1972 votes were cast by fifty-five percent of the electorate; and forty percent in 1996.

(A) electorate; and forty percent in 1996

- Portion after semicolon should have verb, which is missing in this case

(B) electorate; in 1996 the figure was forty percent

- CORRECT, portion after semicolon fixes the above verb issue

(C) electorate, and in 1996 forty percent

- missing verb to create a parallel structure

(D) electorate, forty percent in 1996 was the figure

- missing a conjunction in order to join the sentence here

(E) electorate that fell to forty percent in 1996

- Changes the meaning

Hence, Answer is B

Did you like the answer? Hit Kudos

Intent of the sentence is to compare the % difference of votes for the electorate

(A) electorate; and forty percent in 1996
Incomplete Sentence

(B) electorate; in 1996 the figure was forty percent
|| and correct answer

(C) electorate, and in 1996 forty percent
Incomplete construction, 40 % of what ??

(D) electorate, forty percent in 1996 was the figure
Not ||, incorrect comparison

(E) electorate that fell to forty percent in 1996
Not ||, incorrect comparison

Dear IanStewart GMATGuruNY AnthonyRitz MartyTargetTestPrep VeritasPrepBrian VeritasPrepRon,

Why is choice C. wrong?

Below is the full sentence with choice C.:

In 1972 votes were CAST BY
fifty-five percent of the electorate,
and
in 1996 forty percent.

Here 55% is parallel to 40%. Why is this wrong then?

(similar question to what varunharikumar posted below)

GMATNinja egmat

Option C

In 1972 votes were cast by 55% of the electorate, and in 1996 votes were cast by 40% of the electorate.

Can we omit the text highlighted in green if we consider ellipses? If not, can we use ellipses in this sentence

This is just way too much implying, altogether. You expect the second clause to imply fully seven words, across two different portions of the clause, including the verb that is needed to make this function as an independent clause in the first place and therefore to justify the "comma and." And you expect all of this based on only three words actually given. Some implying is okay, but this is far beyond the pale. I'm not even sure it it's entirely unambiguous. Maybe it could be read as "in 1996 40% were cast by 55% of the electorate." Nonsense, of course, but structurally plausible, right? You're putting too much on the reader -- they shouldn't have to work this hard.

B is a beautiful, perfect correct answer. (A properly-used semicolon is always a good sign that one is on the right track.) It is wrong to strain so hard to try to force something this ugly and problematic when something so nice and inarguably error-free is readily available.

P.s. Even the "and" isn't ideal; this feels more like a contrast to me, the declining vote percentage. The semicolon papers that over nicely, but the other options do not.

GMATNinja

In the Manhattan book there is an example (topic: semicolon)

Wrong: Andrew and Lisa are inseparable, THEREFORE, we never see them apart.
Right: Andrew and Lisa are inseparable; THEREFORE, we never see them apart.

Can you please explain this?

Hi

Before Gmatninja pitches in, a bit of explanation from my side.

‘Therefore’ is a conjunctive adverb as is ‘however’, and they can not be treated like coordinating conjunctions -FANBOYS- to join two clauses.

Therefore would be used to start a dependent clause, but cannot act as a conjunction. So when you treat it as a conjunction as in 1st statement, you create a comma splice, that is two sentences joined by a comma and missing a conjunction.

Now you can correct it many ways
You could add a conjunction ‘and’ after comma OR change ‘comma’ to a ‘semi colon’, exactly the way it is done in statement 2.

Hey how to learn parallelism ? Please suggest some resources

Posted from my mobile device