GMAT CLUB OLYMPICS: Since civil war erupted a decade ago, more than 5

Hello, everyone. This is a question that tests parallelism, but you have to be careful not to chase what you want to be on the screen. I know, why can we not simply have an answer choice that said, have fled... and have been? Well, that would be too easy. If any of you know me from my posts, you probably appreciate that I eschew a mechanical approach to SC. Rules can help you build a foundation, but you achieve mastery when you understand just how those rules can bend according to the context of the sentence. Plus, this is a competition. You signed up for a challenge, right? We should be eager to dive in and get our hands dirty.


I was rejoicing when, not even a month ago, none other than GMATNinja wrote the following response (in part) to a difficult official question that also tests parallelism:


We have to ask ourselves, does it make sense to say that people have fled the country? Of course. I doubt anyone would argue otherwise, given the since + time cue that we get ahead of the main clause. This is SC 101. But now we have to apply the same litmus test (sorry, I am on a roll with mixed metaphors today) to the latter part, and this is where the mechanical-minded test-taker, looking for have been, may grow frustrated and confused. But does it make sense to say that another 6 million [people] are displaced internally—i.e. within the country? Sure, it does. Taken together, we understand that during a decade-long conflict that extends into the present, so many people have fled while others remain in the country, but not without consequence: these unfortunate 6 million are displaced, so they have lost their homes. The parallelism is fine, even if we have to stop to think about it.


The first part checks out, but the second does not: [people] have displaced makes no sense. People can displace an object or be displaced themselves, and, as discussed above, people can have been displaced, but have on its own simply does not work in the context of the sentence. This answer choice is designed to catch the person who is scanning for parallel instances of have without considering meaning.


The present progressive tense, have fled, not the simple past, fled, conveys that people are continuing to flee the country. Neither does were express that the civil war is ongoing. So, despite perfect parallelism, the verbs do not fit the sentence at hand.


We finally get have been, but it is paired with the simple past fled, and, as discussed above, the one-word verb is incorrectly used within the overarching framework of the sentence.


If (C) was a sinking ship and (D) tilted to one side to let some water out, this answer choice tilts the other way to partially relieve the danger. But were still does not fit, any way we would look to spin our argument. The conflict is ongoing, and were marks an endpoint.

Perhaps this one will prove easier than some of the others in the competition, but it should encourage you to think above all else. Happy studies.

- Andrew