What was as remarkable as the development of the compact disc has been

IMO C

No less remarkable introduces a comparison which the rest of the sentence provides


A) What was as remarkable as the development of the compact disc (wrong tense was and has been)
B) The thing that was as remarkable as developing the compact disc (wrong test was and has been)
D) Developing the compact disc has been non the less remarkable than (none the less remarkable sounds awkward)
E) Development of the compact disc has been no less remarkable as ( as has sounds awkward)

C.
Between C and E. E reverses the intended meaning..emphasis is required on the "use of technology" rather than "development of compact disc".

The use of the new technology... must be parallel to the development of...

So, (B) & (D) that use "developing the compact disc" are out.

(E) is incorrect because no less ... as is unidiomatic.

It should be "no less...than".

(A) is wordy with the word "What" and contains 2 tenses (was and has been). That's so confusing.

Therefore, (C) is the best answer.

The use of the new technology... has been no less remarkable than the development of the compact disc.

What was as remarkable as the development of the compact disc has been the use of the new technology to revitalize, in better sound than was ever before possible, some of the classic recorded performances of the pre-LP era
.
(A) What was as remarkable as the development of the compact disc
(B) The thing that was as remarkable as developing the compact disc
(C) No less remarkable than the development of the compact disc
(D) Developing the compact disc has been none the less remarkable than
(E) Development of the compact disc has been no less remarkable as

I could understand options D and E are wrong because they are unidiomatic

D --> None the less....
E --> No less... as

Why are options A and B wrong ?

We are comparing 'the development of the compact disc' with 'the use of the new technology'.

(A) What was as remarkable as the development of the compact disc
(B) The thing that was as remarkable as developing the compact disc

'Use of new technology' is not an object. Hence, use of words such as 'what' and 'thing' to refer to 'the use of new technology' is incorrect.

C is best formed of the remaining options.

The correct answer is C.
B. Not parallel - developing, use.
A. What - unclear and not needed
D. Not parallel - developing, use.
E. No less as - incorrect idiom (no less/more than)

(a) has non-parallel tenses. For (a) to make sense, it would have to begin "what is as remarkable as", since the "remarkability" refers to the present (i.e. it's remarkable now). (b), (d) and (e) all make the same error.

Only (C) doesn't make the same mistake, therefore (c) must be correct.

Another issue with (d) and (e) is the incorrect idiom "less remarkable as" - "less remarkable than" is idiomatically correct. Another reason to eliminate (b) is that "as the developing compact disc" makes no sense in this sentence ("the development of the compact disc" has a completely different meaning and we want to avoid changing the meaning of the original sentence).

(c) uses the idiomatically correct (and parallel) "No less remarkable than the X has been the Y".

hit kudos

The key thing to notice is the language "as remarkable as." The "as something as" or "something than" (eg, greater than, less than) structures indicate comparisons, so I know I have to be comparing two things. Those two things need to be comparable (that is, it needs to make sense to compare those two things) and the two things need to be parallel.

"the use of the new technology" is not underlined, so I need to make the other part about the CD fit that. "The use of" is comparable and parallel to "the development of." That eliminates B and D.

A and B can be eliminated through broken parallelism - they mix verb tenses for the two items I'm comparing (was = past, has been = present perfect).

D and E can be eliminated through incorrect idioms. "none the less remarkable than" mixes two idioms: "none the less" and "no less remarkable than." And "no less remarkable as" is also incorrect idiom - it's either "as remarkable as" or "no less remarkable than."

VeritasKarishma dcummins

Can you please explain all the option choices?

Thanks a lot.

himanshurajawat
I thought about this as an inversion. Here it is in the non-inverted version of the correct answer. Very easy to read in my opinion because it follows the Subject Verb Object structure.

The use of the new technology to revitalize, in better sound than was ever before possible, some of the classic recorded performances of the pre-LP era has been no less remarkable than the development of the compact disc.

In this question we need to look at the use of ‘no less… than’ and parallelism.

Option B and D violate the parallelism that is required in this sentence with the use of ‘developing’. Eliminate.

Option E alters the meaning and incorrectly uses the idiom. Eliminate.

Option A ends up using both ‘was’ and ‘has been’ in the same sentence which is an unnecessary tense jump. Eliminate.

Option C is the best choice with the right idiom and parallelism.

Hope this helps!

Why is A wrong, 2 Verbs can be parallel right?
Correct me if am wrong, was and has been are two different verb forms but can be parallel since they are verbs.
And the comparison in A also makes sense for me, can't understand the reasoning why A is wrong choice.

It seems that you are considering only the grammatical rules that apply in this situation. You have to consider the logic of the meaning conveyed as well.

Notice what the version created via (A) says.

What was as remarkable as the development of the compact disc has been the use of the new technology to revitalize ...

So, we can summarize the sentence as "What was ... has been ...."

Something that "was" no longer is. The simple past "was" is used to indicate that what's being discussed is no longer exists or is no longer going on.

Something that "has been" still exists. The present perfect "has been" is used to indicate that what's being discussed still exists or is still going on.

So, in saying, "What was .. has been ...," the sentence is in conflict with itself. It is saying that something no longer exists and still exists. So, the meaning conveyed by the version created via the use of (A) is nonsensical.

Can someone explain why B is wrong? Which part is paralel?