A recent New York Times editorial criticized the city’s election board

Question

A recent New York Times editorial criticized the city???s election board for,
1. first of all, failing to replace outmoded voting machines prone to breakdowns
2. second, for failing to investigate allegations of corruption involving board members.

Doesn't the 'for' in the second sentence break the parallelism. The parallelism clearly starts after 'for' since 'first of all' is placed after that.

(A) secondarily, for their failure to

(B) secondly, for their failure to

(C) secondly, that they failed and did not

(D) second, that they failed to

(E) second, for failing to

tarunanandani · Accepted Answer

'The city's election board' is a collective noun and hence singular. All the options except E use a plural pronoun to refer 'the board' and thus are incorrect. 
 E   is correct, concise and parallel.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

This is a fairly straight forward question that tests parallel structures.

The need for a  parallel structure  is evident when you see ‘first of all’. The correct way to say it is ‘second of all’ or a similar structure with ellipsis (not the whole phrase 'second of all' but 'second').

This means we can safely  eliminate Options A, B,  and  C .

Between  Options D  and  E ,  Option D  breaks parallel structure. It should have ‘for’ to have the same structure.  Eliminate.

This leaves us with  Option E . 
(E) second, for failing to
This maintains the structure and is  the best option .

Hope this helps!

emma4490 · Answer

Usage of "second" is correct in answer choice E?
I thought it should be secondly that's why I have discarded this choice.

kumarankitabes · Answer

My two cents

In non underlined sentence , it used " first of all"

so second is correctly used here

Posted from my mobile device

livfcind · Answer

A recent New York Times editorial criticized the city???s election board for, 
 1. first of all, failing to replace outmoded voting machines prone to breakdowns
 2. second, for failing to investigate allegations of corruption involving board members.

Doesn't the 'for' in the second sentence break the parallelism. The parallelism clearly starts after 'for' since 'first of all' is placed after that.

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  livfcind . I think you forgot to  start  1. above with the word before  first of all , even though you had typed it just above:   for  ! With it added back in, you can better appreciate the parallel construct:

1.  for ,  first of all ,  failing to replace  outmoded voting machines prone to breakdowns
2.  second ,  for failing to investigate  allegations of corruption involving board members

I have highlighted the part of each phrase that uses a different placement simply to bring up a point. In the first phrase,  first of all  is interrupting, rather than introducing, but in the second,  second  is introducing the phrase instead. For whatever reason grammar has come down to us the way it has, it would be unacceptable to make the two  perfectly  parallel by altering the second phrase, as in,

2. for, second, failing to investigate allegations of corruption involving board members

The placement of  second  in choice (E) above is always preferred. Meanwhile, the placement of the initial counting item,  first of all , is more flexible. It could come either before or after  for , but such a consideration falls outside the underlined portion of this particular question.

- Andrew

jaisonsunny77 · Answer

A recent New York Times editorial criticized the city’s election board for, first of all, failing to replace outmoded voting machines prone to breakdowns, and  secondarily, for their failure to  investigate allegations of corruption involving board members.
 
the demonstrative pronoun ''their'' has the following possible antecedents: machines, breakdowns. Moreover, these antecedents cannot logically perform the action of ''investigation''. Since (A), (B), (C), and (D) all have the pronoun ''their'', we can   eliminate (A), (B), (C), and (D) 
 
We are left with (E).

(E) second, for failing to - (E) introduces the right parallelism structure. hence,  (E) is the right answer choice.

helpmestudy · Answer

A recent New York Times editorial criticized the city???s election board for,
1. first of all, failing to replace outmoded voting machines prone to breakdowns
2. second, for failing to investigate allegations of corruption involving board members.

Doesn't the 'for' in the second sentence break the parallelism. The parallelism clearly starts after 'for' since 'first of all' is placed after that.

I thought that since "criticized the city's election board FOR, first of all," the "for" is implied/carried over to "and second"

Wouldn't any answer with for in the choice indicate "criticized the city's election board FOR, second of all, FOR" ?

Thanks in advance!

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

A recent New York Times editorial criticized the city’s election board

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

A recent New York Times editorial criticized the city’s election board

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards