Hi All,

Although producer prices rose at an unexpectedly steep rate in September, analysts said that the increase resulted mostly from temporary factors and not necessarily foreshadowing that there would be a resurgence of inflation.



The sentence is not written in a clear way to state the meaning of the sentence very clearly. The sentence says that producer prices rose at an unexpected steep rate in September. However, analysts said two things:
a. the increase resulted mostly from temporary factors, and
b. the increase did not necessarily foreshadow a resurgence of inflation.



Error Analysis

1. There is list here that has two entities, “resulted” and “foreshadowing”. These entities are not parallel. Since “resulted” fall into the non-underlined portion of the sentence, we need to make “foreshadowing” parallel to that.
2. The way the sentence has been written, it creates meaning error. We need to remove conjunction “that” to make the entities clear in the list.

POE:

Choice A: factors and not necessarily foreshadowing that there would be: Incorrect for the reasons stated above.

Choice B: factors and not necessarily that it foreshadowed: Incorrect. This choice changes the intended list in the sentence that also changes the meaning of the sentence.
i. The intended list per the sentence: Analysts said that the increase resulted from…, and did not foreshadow…

ii. The list per this choice: Analysts said that the increase resulted from… and (analysts said) not necessarily that it foreshadowed…

Per the original list, the analysts said both the things about the result. But per the list per this choice, analysts said that increase resulted from something but they necessarily did nit that increase foreshadowed something.

Choice C: factors and did not necessarily foreshadow: Correct. The two entities in the list “resulted” and “did not foreshadow” are parallel.

Choice D: factors, while not necessarily a foreshadowing of: Incorrect. Again “resulted” and “foreshadowing” are not parallel.

Choice E: factors, while it did not necessarily foreshadow that there would be: Incorrect. “that there would be…” leads to ambiguity in the meaning of the sentence.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha
_________________

Although producer prices rose at an unexpectedly steep rate in September, analysts said that the increase resulted mostly from temporary factors and not necessarily foreshadowing that there would be a resurgence of inflation.


A. factors and not necessarily foreshadowing that there would be
B. factors and not necessarily that it foreshadowed
C. factors and did not necessarily foreshadow
D. factors, while not necessarily a foreshadowing of
E. factors, while it did not necessarily foreshadow that there would be

I say C. Analysts are saying two things

1. that the increase resulted from...
2. (that the increase) did not necessarily foreshadow....

"necessarily" is an adverb and should be placed next to what it modifies, in this case "foreshadow"

E is awkward and wordy. "Foreshadow" is a transitive verb and needs an object. In E the object is a convoluted noun clause which doesn't really make sense.

Hi Prakhar,
No it is not increase and foreshadow which are parallel..

usage of INCREASE in 'the increase is NOUN, so you cannot parallel it with a VERB, FORESHADOW...
NOW , what are the items which are parallel...
First always look at the verb..
the increase RESULTED ..... and DID not necessarily....

so parallelism is at the verbs 'resulted' and 'did'..
let me write the sentence..
Although producer prices rose at an unexpectedly steep rate in September, analysts said that the increase resulted mostly from temporary factors and the increase did not necessarily foreshadow a resurgence of inflation

hi..

The problem with it is that it does not make sense and IT does not refer back correctly to anything..

let me try and parallel the two parts of the sentence on EITHER side of AND..

1) Parallel the THAT
Although producer prices rose at an unexpectedly steep rate in September, analysts said that the increase resulted mostly from temporary factors and analysts said not necessarily that it foreshadowed a resurgence of inflation...
what is IT here??
2) parallel the portion after INCREASE..
Although producer prices rose at an unexpectedly steep rate in September, analysts said that the increase resulted mostly from temporary factors and the increase not necessarily that it foreshadowed a resurgence of inflation...
Does it make sense..NO

This question is based on Construction and Parallelism.

The latter part of the sentence gives us two pieces of information about the increase –
1. that the increase resulted mostly from temporary factors
2. that the increase did not necessarily foreshadow that there would be a resurgence of inflation
These two pieces of information should be structured similarly.

Option A lacks parallelism. The first piece of information is in the form of a clause and so must be the second. However, in Option A, the second part has a participle "foreshadowing". So, Option A can be eliminated.

In Option B, the adverbs ‘not necessarily’ are misplaced. There is no verb that these adverbs can logically modify. They would have to relate back to the verb ‘said’, in which case, the sentence would mean that the analysts said not necessarily that…… This makes it an illogical sentence, so, option B can be eliminated.

Option C maintains parallelism in the way the two pieces of information are stated –
the increase resulted mostly from temporary factors and did not necessarily foreshadow
Both the pieces of information are in the form of an independent clause. So, Option C is the appropriate choice.

Option D changes the second clause into a participle modifier, the subject of which is not clear. So, Option D can be eliminated.

Option E is wordy. It also contains the transition word ‘while, which coveys a contrast that is not implied in the sentence. So, Option E can also be eliminated.

Therefore, C is the best option.

Jayanthi Kumar.
_________________