As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat

Hi,

I have a doubt regarding this question.

they can also pilfer info such as----, and sell data...
",and" construction is used for to connect 2 ICs. But in this case, "'and sell data.." does not have a subject.

How is this construction OK?

please help.

Thanks in advance.

Snigdha

As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticated, not only are thieves able to divert cash from company bank accounts, they can also pilfer valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans, and sell the data to competitors.

NOT ONLY..... BUT ALSO IS USED FOR ONLY TWO THINGS. FOR MORE THAN TWO ELEMENTS WE HAVE TO USE A PARALLEL LIST, RIGHT? CAN
GMATNinja PLEASE HELP.

So I've seen a lot of test-takers make mistakes on this question, usually because of overreliance on an idiom “rule” that doesn’t really exist. If you see the phrase “not only”, that does NOT automatically mean that you need to have a “but also” somewhere else in the sentence! There’s no reason why you couldn’t use the phrase “not only” by itself, as long as it makes logical sense with the context of the sentence.

Don’t get me wrong: “not… but” phrases are pretty important on the GMAT, but only because they require parallelism. Basically, whatever follows the word “not” (or “not only”) must be structurally parallel to whatever follows the word “but” (or “but also”). (Similar parallelism rules apply to both/and and either/or constructions – more on these in an upcoming Topic of the Week.)

But again, there’s nothing wrong with having “not only” without the “but also.”


“They” jumps out at me right away, but I think it’s fine, since it refers to “thieves.” I suppose “they” could also refer to “bank accounts,” but I don’t think the pronoun is automatically wrong. Ambiguity isn’t an absolute rule (see our YouTube webinar on this pronouns for more), and “they” isn’t particularly confusing here.

The parallelism also seems OK, even if it doesn’t sound great. We have two different lists going on in (A). First, we have a pair of parallel verbs: “…they can also pilfer information… and sell data…” That seems fine. We also have a list of the types of information that thieves pilfer: “…such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans…” That’s just three parallel nouns – no problem. Keep (A).


(B) is very similar to (A), except that the final “and” is followed by “selling.” And that’s a problem, because I don’t know what “selling” is parallel to: nothing in the sentence is in the same format. Logically, “selling” should be parallel to “pilfer”, but in that case, it should be “…they pilfer… and sell…”, as in answer choice (A). (B) can be eliminated.


The big change here is that “pilfering” and “selling” are now “-ing” words – modifiers, in this case. (Feel free to check out our guide to “-ing” words for more on this topic.)

But that doesn’t really make any sense. “As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticated, not only are thieves able to divert cash from company bank accounts, pilfering valuable information…” For this to be correct, “pilfering valuable information” would have to modify “not only are thieves able to divert cash…” – and it simply doesn’t. These are completely different types of criminal activity, and the “pilfering valuable information” does not modify “diverting cash.”

Similarly, “selling” is basically hanging out on its own. I guess it’s trying to modify the previous phrase beginning with “pilfering”, but I can’t make much sense of that, either. (C) is out.


OK, now we really do have a “not only… but also” structure, which means that we need to think about parallelism again. There’s not much wiggle-room here: whatever follows “not only” needs to be parallel to whatever follows “but also.”

So we have: “not only are thieves able to divert cash… but also pilfer valuable information…” This isn’t awful, but it doesn’t quite seem parallel to me: “not only are thieves” gives us a subject and a verb, but the “but also” is followed only by a verb.

Plus, “to sell” seems to only modify “contract bidding plans”, and that’s not quite right: the thieves are selling the strategies and specifications, too. (A) makes much more sense than (D).


The parallelism is much more thoroughly flawed in (E). We have: “not only are thieves able to divert cash… but also pilfering valuable information…” Definitely not parallel. (E) is out, and (A) is the correct answer.

Dear GMATNinja,

First of all, wishing you a very happy Christmas and a very happy upcoming new year!

While parallelism is undoubtedly faulty in all of the incorrect answer choices, there is the below split which I used to eliminate options B and C straightaway. It would be great if you can through some light on the split and review my approach.

My understanding of the correct version:
Correct version - valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans
Out of all the varieties of valuable information available these thieves pilfered 3 pieces i.e. business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans

My understanding of the versions in B and C:
Usage in B - valuable information that includes business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans
Usage in C - valuable information including business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans

What I understand is that the thieves pilfered all the available varieties of valuable information (against only the 3 specified in the correct version) and part of what they pilfered included business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans

Warm Regards,
Pritishd

Great post, as always.
I have a question though. You mentioned that in (D), 'to sell' seems to modify only 'contract bidding plans'. But I understood 'to sell' to modify 'pilfer valuable information' hence written correctly here. Could you shed more light on why you think 'to sell' modifies only 'contract bidding plans'.

OK, now we really do have a “not only… but also” structure, which means that we need to think about parallelism again. There’s not much wiggle-room here: whatever follows “not only” needs to be parallel to whatever follows “but also.”

So we have: “not only are thieves able to divert cash… but also pilfer valuable information…” This isn’t awful, but it doesn’t quite seem parallel to me: “not only are thieves” gives us a subject and a verb, but the “but also” is followed only by a verb.

GMATNinja
Hello sir,
Thanks for the nice explanation.
I've a query on your explanation on the basis of choice D.
What if I say the following sentence?
GMATNinja not only scored the perfect score in GRE but also scored the perfect score in GMAT.
In this example, We've used 'GMATNinja' as subject and 'scored' as verb, but we did not use any 'subject' for the 'but also' part. It seems that the above sentence is still right. So, why NOT D (at least with the point of 'subject and verb' issue)?

In your example, "GMATNinja" comes before the "not only... but also" structure. That means that the subject, "GMATNinja", is actually shared by both parts.

In case that isn't clear, consider these two examples:

• "Asad (1) studied for the GMAT and (2) was admitted to Stanford." - Here we have two parallel verbs ("studied" and "was") that clearly share the subject "Asad". No problem at all.
• "Asad not only (1) studied for the GMAT but also (2) was admitted to Stanford." - Here we basically have the same thing, but with a "not only... but also" structure. As with the simple "and" structure in the previous example, the two parallel verbs share the subject "Asad". Again, no problem at all!

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja
Thank you sir for the response.
So, it seems that there is no problem in the parallelism issue. But, i asked this question because you said that This isn’t awful, but it doesn’t quite seem parallel to me.
So, we can't cross out choice D on the basis of parallelism issue, right?


Curiosity to know: Sir, how do you know that i am a fan of ''Stanford''?

Daagh, you're bringing this to a whole new level of grammar intensity! Always fun. (And yes, apparently I'm a grammar nerd or something. I guess it says that in my job title...?)

Disclaimer: unless you really love grammar, just stop reading right now. This isn't an important rant for most test-takers -- there are dozens (hundreds?) of far more important things to worry about on the GMAT.

OK, so answer choice (A) has three components:



So component #1 is clearly a dependent clause. On to #2:



Ah, here it is: this can't stand alone as a sentence, either. Sure, it doesn't have a standard "marker" that "turns" an independent clause into a dependent clause (although, but, and, because, etc.), but it's still a dependent clause: it has a subject and a verb, but can't stand alone -- at least not the way it's written in (A).

So we have two dependent clauses so far. On to part #3:



And there's our independent clause. So we don't have a comma splice here, and GMAC didn't actually make a mistake in this case -- it's just that the middle clause is super-sneaky.

I hope this helps! And seriously: if you're not daagh and you didn't follow this explanation, please don't worry about it. Again, parallelism and other issues are way more important here.

I agree with eddy8700... parallelism is an issue in choice D because "not only" is followed by a subject and a verb (subject: "thieves", verb: "are"); therefore, "but also" would also need to be followed by a subject and a verb. In choice D, "but also" is followed only by the verb "pilfer", but no subject. Consider the following example: "Not only do you play tennis, but also coach rugby." This is incorrect for the same reason. Instead, you could use "Not only do you play tennis, but you also coach rugby." or "You not only play tennis but also coach rugby."

Similarly, the following sentence, which mimics choice D, is acceptable: "Thieves not only divert cash from company bank accounts but also pilfer valuable information." ("not only" + verb... "but also" + verb)

As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticated, not only are thieves able to divert cash from company bank accounts, they can also pilfer valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans, and sell the data to competitors.


A. they can also pilfer valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans, and sell ---- There are two acts the thieves do such as 1. pilfer X, Y, and Z and 2. sell the date. The best choice as I see.

B. they can also pilfer valuable information that includes business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans, and selling ---and selling is unparallel

C. also pilfering valuable information including business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans, selling -- also preferring is an outright fragment

D. but also pilfer valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans to sell -- not only are thieves' is not parallel to 'but also pilfer'

E. but also pilfering valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans and selling -- 'but also pilfering' is a fragment.

So I've seen a lot of test-takers make mistakes on this question, usually because of overreliance on an idiom “rule” that doesn’t really exist. If you see the phrase “not only”, that does NOT automatically mean that you need to have a “but also” somewhere else in the sentence! There’s no reason why you couldn’t use the phrase “not only” by itself, as long as it makes logical sense with the context of the sentence.

Don’t get me wrong: “not… but” phrases are pretty important on the GMAT, but only because they require parallelism. Basically, whatever follows the word “not” (or “not only”) must be structurally parallel to whatever follows the word “but” (or “but also”). (Similar parallelism rules apply to both/and and either/or constructions – more on these in an upcoming Topic of the Week.)

But again, there’s nothing wrong with having “not only” without the “but also.”


“They” jumps out at me right away, but I think it’s fine, since it refers to “thieves.” I suppose “they” could also refer to “bank accounts,” but I don’t think the pronoun is automatically wrong. Ambiguity isn’t an absolute rule (see our YouTube webinar on this pronouns for more), and “they” isn’t particularly confusing here.

The parallelism also seems OK, even if it doesn’t sound great. We have two different lists going on in (A). First, we have a pair of parallel verbs: “…they can also pilfer information… and sell data…” That seems fine. We also have a list of the types of information that thieves pilfer: “…such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans…” That’s just three parallel nouns – no problem. Keep (A).


(B) is very similar to (A), except that the final “and” is followed by “selling.” And that’s a problem, because I don’t know what “selling” is parallel to: nothing in the sentence is in the same format. Logically, “selling” should be parallel to “pilfer”, but in that case, it should be “…they pilfer… and sell…”, as in answer choice (A). (B) can be eliminated.


The big change here is that “pilfering” and “selling” are now “-ing” words – modifiers, in this case. (Feel free to check out our guide to “-ing” words for more on this topic.)

But that doesn’t really make any sense. “As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticated, not only are thieves able to divert cash from company bank accounts, pilfering valuable information…” For this to be correct, “pilfering valuable information” would have to modify “not only are thieves able to divert cash…” – and it simply doesn’t. These are completely different types of criminal activity, and the “pilfering valuable information” does not modify “diverting cash.”

Similarly, “selling” is basically hanging out on its own. I guess it’s trying to modify the previous phrase beginning with “pilfering”, but I can’t make much sense of that, either. (C) is out.


OK, now we really do have a “not only… but also” structure, which means that we need to think about parallelism again. There’s not much wiggle-room here: whatever follows “not only” needs to be parallel to whatever follows “but also.”

So we have: “not only are thieves able to divert cash… but also pilfer valuable information…” This isn’t awful, but it doesn’t quite seem parallel to me: “not only are thieves” gives us a subject and a verb, but the “but also” is followed only by a verb.

Plus, “to sell” seems to only modify “contract bidding plans”, and that’s not quite right: the thieves are selling the strategies and specifications, too. (A) makes much more sense than (D).


The parallelism is much more thoroughly flawed in (E). We have: “not only are thieves able to divert cash… but also pilfering valuable information…” Definitely not parallel. (E) is out, and (A) is the correct answer.

Can someone please explain why the "," after bidding plans is needed?

"they can also pilfer valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans, and sell"

why is the following not correct?

they can also pilfer valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans and sell (without the comma after bidding)

I've read so many webpages on comma rules and can't seem to find a rule for why there needs to be a comma there. I understand it "looks" better in that it separates the list "strategies... and bidding plans..." from "and sell..." but can't seem to find any definitive rule anywhere on why this is the case.

Thanks for the help in advance.

Hi Ratnesh, generally with a not only...but also structure, the verb is outside of the idiomatic construct. So, a better sentence would be:

....thieves can not only divert cash from company bank accounts but also pilfer valuable information...

Even in the sentence that you have suggested, at the very least, I would add a can to the second part, so as to not change the meaning of the original sentence.

...thieves not only are able to divert cash from company bank accounts, but also can pilfer valuable information....

Actually not only are thieves able to divert cash from company bank accounts is also not an IC. The presence of not only clearly indicates that there is something else to follow.

In fact, the real lesson to learn from this sentence is that not only need not necessarily be followed by but also.

The presence of not only clearly indicates that there is something else to follow.

So, do you think that it'll still make sense if we remove 'they' from the correct sentence (A)?

EducationAisle
So, do you think that it'll still make sense if we remove 'they' from the correct sentence (A)?

Hi TheUltimateWinner, without they, option A will be:

As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticated, not only are thieves able to divert cash from company bank accounts, they can also pilfer valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans, and sell the data to competitors.

Is this what you are suggesting?

In the highlighted part, you did not put 'they'.