Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 20:20 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 20:20
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4   5   
655-705 Level|   Idioms/Diction/Redundancy|   Meaning/Logical Predication|   Modifiers|   Parallelism|   Verb Tense/Form|                        
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,489
Kudos: 2,387
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 04 Aug 2020, 04:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EducationAisle
TheUltimateWinner
In the highlighted part, you did not put 'they'.
Hi TheUltimateWinner, the version suggested above is:

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

Notice that the parallelism here is:

Not only X But also Y

So, X and Y have to parallel. Here, the parallelism is between two verbs: are and pilfer.

Hence, we cannot put they in this version.
Show more
EducationAisle
Thanks for the reply.
Sometimes, I feel that the highlighted part is not a pure sentence, because I don't find any verb in that sentence! The reason is: the closed marker (Not only_________but also; Either________or) are just parallel marker indicator! They can't express the sentence's job (verb part), maybe. The sentence should have at least a verb out of closed marker, shouldn't it?
What's your thinking on it?
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 04 Aug 2020, 04:54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TheUltimateWinner
The sentence should have at least a verb out of closed marker, shouldn't it?
Show more
Not necessarily.

For example, following sentence would be correct:

Dacoits not only attack but also kill.
avatar
TheUltimateWinner
avatar
Schools: Harvard '24 Judge '23 LBS '24 McCombs '24 Mendoza Tepper '24 Ross '24 Cox Marshall '24 Fisher Kelley '24 Jones McDonough '24 Owen '24 Terry BU Simon '24 Katz GWU Mason Babson Gabelli Foster '24 Goizueta '24 Scheller Stern '23 CBS '23 Booth '23 Haas '25 Wharton '25 Stanford '26 Johnson'23 Fuqua '23 Kellogg '23 Kenan-Flagler'23 INSEAD Aug 22 intake Olin '23 Said '23 Sloan '23 Carey Arizona "22 Yale '23 UC Davis Madison '23 Anderson '23 Carroll Carlson '23 Darden '23
Posts: 2,489
Kudos: 2,387
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 04 Aug 2020, 05:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EducationAisle
TheUltimateWinner
The sentence should have at least a verb out of closed marker, shouldn't it?
Not necessarily.

For example, following sentence would be correct:

Dacoits not only attack but also kill.
Show more
If someone says:
Dacoits are some people who not only attack but also kill.
Is there any difference in meaning in these two versions?
Which version do you think most legit?
Actually, my feeling says there should have a 'verb' before the closed marker!
User avatar
EducationAisle
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,891
Own Kudos:
3,579
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,891
Kudos: 3,579
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 04 Aug 2020, 05:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
TheUltimateWinner
If someone says:
Dacoits are some people who not only attack but also kill.
Show more
This is a fundamentally different construct. It broadly comprises two clauses:

i) Dacoits are some people
- Independent clause

ii) who not only attack but also kill
- Dependent clause (relative clause)

We can perhaps continue this discussion over PM, since this might not be relevant to most peoples' interests.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,779
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,779
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 02 Sep 2020, 12:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
GMATNinja I rejected A because ", and send the data to competitors." .

, and is used to connect two Independent clauses. but in this there is no Subject. Its in the previous clause. Please advise.

Thanks
Kunal
Show more
Rule #1 of Sentence Correction: don't invent rules! ;)

It's a common misconception that "comma + and" must connect two independent clauses. The construction certainly can do that, but it doesn't have to.

Consider:

    Tim specializes in disappointing his children, infuriating his wife, and antagonizing his neighbors.

Here, we have "comma + and" to conclude a list of three elements. That's fine.

We could also write:

    Tim has never won a Pulitzer Prize, one of the most prestigious awards for literary fiction, and often consoles himself by polishing the "most likely to inadvertently set his pants on fire" medal he won in high school.

Again, we have "comma + and", but this time, the comma before "and" is setting off a non-essential modifier, so the main clause is "Tim has never won a Pulitzer Prize and often consoles himself..." This is also okay.

The takeaway: there are very few rules informing comma usage, so it's better to rely on other, more concrete decision points. Much more on punctuation in this video.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,779
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,779
 [1]
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 02 Sep 2020, 18:25
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
I'm confused how 'to sell' modify only “contract bidding plans” only? :? :?
I've bought some pens, pencils, and books to distribute the poor student.
In this example, 'to distribute' surely modifies pens, pencils, and books (not only 'books'). Am I wrong, sir?
Show more
You're right that it's theoretically possible to follow up a list of three elements with a modifier that describes all three components. The problem, in this SC question, is that the construction is illogical no matter how we interpret it.

Take another look at the relevant portion of (D):

Quote:
"...but also pilfer valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans to sell the data to competitors...."
Show more
One could have a plan to sell data to competitors. And one could have a contract bidding plan. But what on earth is a contract bidding plan to sell the data to competitors? A contract bidding plan is a plan to bid on a contract. This has nothing to do with selling data, so the notion of a contract bidding plan to sell data is nonsensical.

Whether you argue that "to sell" illogically modifies the last element of the list in isolation, or modifies every element in the list, you're left with the same problem: the modifier is incoherent.

Quote:
I'm also confused here in this case how 'selling' is trying to modify 'valuable information including business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans'. If 'selling' is an adverbial modifier the green part has to be independent clause, isn't it? But, the green part is just the list of 3 items!
Could you share your thought how why did you guess it, sir?
Show more
I'm confused about what "selling" is doing in (C) too -- that's why it's a problem! Usually, when an "-ing" modifier comes after a clause, it describes the previous clause, giving us either a consequence of the previous action or context in which the action occurred. But again, neither interpretation works. Take another look at (C):

Quote:
(C) Not only are thieves able to divert cash from company bank accounts, also pilfering valuable information including business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans, selling the data to competitor.
Show more
The main clause here appears to be "Not only are thieves able to divert cash," but it's hard to see how selling data to competitors could be a consequence of thieves diverting cash. The construction is illogical.

Contrast this with what we see in (A), in which the thieves are performing two discrete actions -- they "pilfer" information and "sell" the data. This makes far more sense, and so is preferable to either (C) or (D), both of which have meaning issues.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,779
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,779
 [2]
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 13 Sep 2020, 11:36
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Sorry, I'm late to the party here, but I'll try to address a bunch of the questions here anyway, just in case it helps somebody.
Harsh2111s
miiicho
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.
miiicho
You are correct but better looking is not the only reason.
The sentence should make sense thus "comma" is necessary to separate strategies and other phrase.
If you have two independent clauses on either side of an "and", then you definitely need a comma before the "and".
Hope it helps :)
Show more
Nice work, Harsh2111s! miiicho, you might also want to review this post from earlier in the thread.

Krishchamp
So in option C, according to you then what does "pilfering valuable information" refer to? It seems that it is correctly refering to "not only are thieves able to divert cash…”. Can you please elaborate more on this?
Show more
In choice (C), "pilfering" seems to modify “not only are thieves able to divert cash…”. This doesn't work because "diverting cash" and "pilfering valuable information" are two completely separate activities: are you pilfering valuable information as you divert cash? Nope. Cash itself doesn't contain any valuable information (unless you are trying to learn the names and faces of historical figures who appear on currency??).

So, "pilfering valuable information" should be a separate criminal activity, not something that modifies “not only are thieves able to divert cash..."

shanks2020
Hi Daagh/any expert,

Can't thieves be an implied subject after but also, just as we have in some cases of ellipses?
Show more
If we wanted "thieves" to be an implied subject after "but also", we'd probably want to do something like this:

  • "Thieves are not only able to divert cash but also able to pilfer valuable information." - This structure doesn't sound great, but it's perfectly parallel: "Thieves are not only able to [verb 1] but also able to [verb 2]."
  • "Thieves are able not only to divert cash but also to pilfer valuable information." - This is pretty much the same, but now we've moved "able" before the not only/but also: "Thieves are able not only to [verb 1] but also to [verb 2]."
  • "Thieves are able to not only divert cash but also pilfer valuable information." - And here we've simply moved "able to" before the not only/but also: "Thieves are able to not only [verb 1] but also [verb 2]."

Any of these would be fine, and there is no need to repeat the subject "thieves" (or to use the pronoun "they").

shanks2020
HI GMATNinja,

Is it necessary to have the verb first after not only if the verb is not before Not only structure?
For example, is it correct to say: Not only i play tennis but also i play rugby./Not only i play tennis but i also play rugby/Not only do i play tennis but i also play rugby?
Show more
This variation would NOT work:

  • "Not only thieves are able to divert cash but also thieves are able to pilfer valuable information."

Why do this when you can use one of the structures listed above? Also, when I read "Not only thieves are able to divert cash..", I think the sentence is preparing me to read about some OTHER group of people that is ALSO able to divert cash.

But before you go down a rabbit hole trying to think of every possible "correct" variation of not only/but also, I suggest reading this post from earlier in the thread. As stated in that post:

    "... whenever you see a phrase with BOTH “not” and “but”, your priority is to think about parallelism first, and meaning second. And that’s it. Beyond that, please don’t overthink these. There are a million ways to use the words "not" and "but" -- with or without each other -- and there's no value in trying to learn every variation."

I hope that helps a bit!
User avatar
CrackverbalGMAT
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Last visit: 16 Nov 2025
Posts: 4,844
Own Kudos:
8,945
Given Kudos: 225
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Location: India
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,844
Kudos: 8,945
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 13 Mar 2021, 05:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
(B) they can also pilfer valuable information that includes business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans, and selling
(C) also pilfering valuable information including business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans, selling
(D) but also pilfer valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans to sell
(E) but also pilfering valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans and selling

The sentence is correct as it is. The correct answer is option A.
As criminal activity on the internet becomes more......., not only are thieves are able to-
1) divert cash...
2) pilfer valuable information...
and
3) sell data....
Options B, C, and E are eliminated as they contain an error of parallelism. The -ing form - "selling" is used instead of "sell"

Option D uses the correlative conjunctions "not only" and "but also" but contains an error of parallelism. Not only X but also Y is the structure that we have to maintain. In the sentence given, not only are thieves able to divert cash ( subject + verb) should be similar to what follows "but also".
But in Option D, it says, but also pilfer valuable information (no subject, only verb). This breaks parallelism and is hence incorrect.


Vishnupriya
CrackVerbal Prep Team
User avatar
Pankaj0901
User avatar
Joined: 18 Dec 2018
Last visit: 17 Dec 2022
Posts: 419
Own Kudos:
51
Given Kudos: 737
Location: India
WE:Account Management (Hospitality and Tourism)
Posts: 419
Kudos: 51
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 28 Mar 2021, 00:53
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja - Going by your explanation (amazing as always), I am confused if the following example is considered:

Not only…but also…
Example: Idioms are not only difficult to memorize but are also easy to mix up. (reference)

Breaking this down-
Idioms are
(not) only difficult to memorize
(but) are also easy to mix up.

Isn't "are" redundant here? How is this sentence structurally correct? Request you to please highlight as I seem to be missing something here.

GMATNinja
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.”
Show more
avatar
aritrar4
avatar
Current Student
Joined: 12 Jun 2020
Last visit: 06 Sep 2024
Posts: 103
Own Kudos:
93
Given Kudos: 147
Location: India
Schools: S.P.Jain Institute (A) IIMA PGPX'23 (A) IIMC MBAEx'23 (A) ISB '23 (I) IIMB EPGP'23 (D)
GMAT 1: 680 Q47 V35
GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V34
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.73
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: S.P.Jain Institute (A) IIMA PGPX'23 (A) IIMC MBAEx'23 (A) ISB '23 (I) IIMB EPGP'23 (D)
GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V35
Posts: 103
Kudos: 93
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 01 Apr 2021, 04:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja I really liked your explanation of the "not only / but also" rigidity that we tend to follow and how it is flexible in context of a sentence. However, I came across the below sentence in the MGMAT question bank which discarded a choice for not following the "not only / but also" idiom. Is "but" required to follow a "not only" in a sentence?

https://gmatclub.com/forum/not-only-did ... ml#p761279

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,779
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,779
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 09 Apr 2021, 10:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Pankaj0901
GMATNinja - Going by your explanation (amazing as always), I am confused if the following example is considered:

Not only…but also…
Example: Idioms are not only difficult to memorize but are also easy to mix up. (reference)

Breaking this down-
Idioms are
(not) only difficult to memorize
(but) are also easy to mix up.

Isn't "are" redundant here? How is this sentence structurally correct? Request you to please highlight as I seem to be missing something here.

GMATNinja
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.”
Show more
Yeah, I agree with you. The GMAT would prefer a construction of:

    Idioms are not only difficult to memorize, but also easy to mix up.

In this version, the parallel elements are "difficult" and "easy," both adjectives, as opposed to the original you cited, in which "difficult," an adjective, was improperly parallel to "are," a verb.

Good catch!
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,779
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,779
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 09 Apr 2021, 17:32
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
aritrar4
GMATNinja I really liked your explanation of the "not only / but also" rigidity that we tend to follow and how it is flexible in context of a sentence. However, I came across the below sentence in the MGMAT question bank which discarded a choice for not following the "not only / but also" idiom. Is "but" required to follow a "not only" in a sentence?

https://gmatclub.com/forum/not-only-did ... ml#p761279

Posted from my mobile device
Show more
Going back to what we said in an earlier post,

    "the not/but structure generally demands strict parallelism, but if one of those is missing, then it’s a totally different structure. You could have the word “not” without the “but”, and vice-versa... whenever you see a phrase with BOTH “not” and “but”, your priority is to think about parallelism first, and meaning second."

So if you HAVE a "not (only)/but (also)," then you need to check out the parallelism. That said, "but" is not required every time you see a "not only" in a sentence.

Keep in mind that the example you are referencing is not an official question, so I wouldn't get too hung up on it ;) .
avatar
AG95
avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2019
Last visit: 21 May 2022
Posts: 32
Own Kudos:
10
Given Kudos: 306
Location: United States (PA)
Posts: 32
Kudos: 10
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 12 Jun 2021, 06:42
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
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.”

Quote:
A. they can also pilfer valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans, and sell
“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).

Quote:
B. they can also pilfer valuable information that includes business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans, and selling
(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.

Quote:
C. also pilfering valuable information including business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans, selling
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.

Quote:
D. but also pilfer valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans to sell
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).

Quote:
E. but also pilfering valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans and selling
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.
Show more


Hey GMATNinja. Thanks for explaining it so cleanly. One question: in option A, it is giving a sense that thieved pilfer and see information, both happen in parallel. However in option D, it is giving sense that they are pilfering the information to sell. Option D makes more sense to me. hence, i picked option D. could you please throw more light on this?
User avatar
MBAB123
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2020
Last visit: 30 Jul 2023
Posts: 563
Own Kudos:
318
 [3]
Given Kudos: 151
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
Posts: 563
Kudos: 318
 [3]
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 24 Jun 2021, 20:55
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AG95
GMATNinja
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.”

Quote:
A. they can also pilfer valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans, and sell
“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).

Quote:
B. they can also pilfer valuable information that includes business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans, and selling
(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.

Quote:
C. also pilfering valuable information including business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans, selling
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.

Quote:
D. but also pilfer valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans to sell
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).

Quote:
E. but also pilfering valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans and selling
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.


Hey GMATNinja. Thanks for explaining it so cleanly. One question: in option A, it is giving a sense that thieved pilfer and see information, both happen in parallel. However in option D, it is giving sense that they are pilfering the information to sell. Option D makes more sense to me. hence, i picked option D. could you please throw more light on this?
Show more

AG95, there is a clear cut parallelism error in option D. Meaning wise, stealing and selling is not inherently worse than stealing to sell. A lot of thieves steal things for their own use and not necessarily for the purpose of selling. I can't see anything wrong with both the activities happening parallely and option D has a clear cut grammatical issue.
avatar
Jue
avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2020
Last visit: 14 May 2023
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
38
Given Kudos: 6
GMAT 1: 740 Q47 V44
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 740 Q47 V44
Posts: 14
Kudos: 38
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 30 Jun 2021, 01:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
D. but also pilfer valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans to sell
Show more
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).



GMATNinja,
Firstly, I want to thank you for your explanations. They have been the greatest help in changing the way I see sentence correction questions. Now back to the question ....

While I understand that not only...but also construction isn't a hard and fast rule, but in this particular case 'not only' is followed by the verb 'are' and 'but also' is followed by the verb 'pilfer'. Yet you write that 'not only' is followed by a noun-verb. Can you please help me see what I'm missing here?

Thank you
R.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,779
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,779
 [1]
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 05 Jul 2021, 14:56
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Jue

GMATNinja,
Firstly, I want to thank you for your explanations. They have been the greatest help in changing the way I see sentence correction questions. Now back to the question ....

While I understand that not only...but also construction isn't a hard and fast rule, but in this particular case 'not only' is followed by the verb 'are' and 'but also' is followed by the verb 'pilfer'. Yet you write that 'not only' is followed by a noun-verb. Can you please help me see what I'm missing here?

Thank you
R.
Show more
Thank you for the kind words!

I feel your pain on this one. In this case, both components of the parallel construction are clauses, but one of them is hard to recognize, because the subject-verb order is switched. (This is called an "inverted clause", if you like the jargon.)

It's easier to see what's happening if we start with a conventional construction:

    Tim is insensitive, and he forgets his anniversary every year.

Here, you have a simple parallel construction; "and" connects the two clauses in red. Pretty straightforward. But watch what happens if I write this sentence using "not only" as my parallel marker:

    Not only is Tim insensitive, he also forgets his anniversary every year.

Notice that we still have two clauses, but the first one is inverted -- the verb "is" comes before the noun, "Tim." You can see pretty quickly that a conventional clause would create an incoherent meaning: "Not only Tim is insensitive..." makes it sound like Tim isn't the only one who's insensitive. Clearly, this wouldn't work with the second clause, which gives us more information about Tim alone. So it makes sense to invert the clause here.

What's confusing is that if you only look at the word that comes immediately after "not only," you may think, "great, I've got a verb there, so I need a verb to start the second part of my parallel construction. This isn't true. It's a good reminder that parallelism isn't about two components looking the same; it's about two components playing the same role. In this case, the two components happen to be clauses.

Same deal in this question. Take another look at the relevant parts of (A):

Quote:
Not only are thieves able to divert cash...they can also pilfer valuable information
Show more
Again, we've got two parallel clauses. It's just that the first is inverted. It's easy to recognize that "Thieves are able to divert cash" is a clause. Harder to see it when the subject and verb are flipped. Just know that this is perfectly acceptable.

The takeaway: don't get tunnel vision! Parallelism is about logic as well as grammar, so you want to make sure you take in the entirety of the sentence, and ask yourself if the two parallel components are doing similar things even if they look a little different.

I hope that helps!
avatar
Jue
avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2020
Last visit: 14 May 2023
Posts: 14
Own Kudos:
38
Given Kudos: 6
GMAT 1: 740 Q47 V44
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 740 Q47 V44
Posts: 14
Kudos: 38
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 17 Jul 2021, 01:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
Jue

GMATNinja,
Firstly, I want to thank you for your explanations. They have been the greatest help in changing the way I see sentence correction questions. Now back to the question ....

While I understand that not only...but also construction isn't a hard and fast rule, but in this particular case 'not only' is followed by the verb 'are' and 'but also' is followed by the verb 'pilfer'. Yet you write that 'not only' is followed by a noun-verb. Can you please help me see what I'm missing here?

Thank you
R.
Thank you for the kind words!

I feel your pain on this one. In this case, both components of the parallel construction are clauses, but one of them is hard to recognize, because the subject-verb order is switched. (This is called an "inverted clause", if you like the jargon.)

It's easier to see what's happening if we start with a conventional construction:

    Tim is insensitive, and he forgets his anniversary every year.

Here, you have a simple parallel construction; "and" connects the two clauses in red. Pretty straightforward. But watch what happens if I write this sentence using "not only" as my parallel marker:

    Not only is Tim insensitive, he also forgets his anniversary every year.

Notice that we still have two clauses, but the first one is inverted -- the verb "is" comes before the noun, "Tim." You can see pretty quickly that a conventional clause would create an incoherent meaning: "Not only Tim is insensitive..." makes it sound like Tim isn't the only one who's insensitive. Clearly, this wouldn't work with the second clause, which gives us more information about Tim alone. So it makes sense to invert the clause here.

What's confusing is that if you only look at the word that comes immediately after "not only," you may think, "great, I've got a verb there, so I need a verb to start the second part of my parallel construction. This isn't true. It's a good reminder that parallelism isn't about two components looking the same; it's about two components playing the same role. In this case, the two components happen to be clauses.

Same deal in this question. Take another look at the relevant parts of (A):

Quote:
Not only are thieves able to divert cash...they can also pilfer valuable information
Again, we've got two parallel clauses. It's just that the first is inverted. It's easy to recognize that "Thieves are able to divert cash" is a clause. Harder to see it when the subject and verb are flipped. Just know that this is perfectly acceptable.

The takeaway: don't get tunnel vision! Parallelism is about logic as well as grammar, so you want to make sure you take in the entirety of the sentence, and ask yourself if the two parallel components are doing similar things even if they look a little different.

I hope that helps!
Show more

GMATNinja

Thank you for your clear explanation. I get your point. I have a follow up to this. Would you say that option D would be correct if we reconstructed the non-underlined portion in the following manner: "As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticated, thieves are able to not only divert cash from company bank accounts,....". Also assume we change the "to sell" part in option D to "and sell".

I think in this way we can make 'thieves' the subject of two parallel verbal clauses that are neatly structured with the "not only...but also" word-pairing.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,779
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,779
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 17 Jul 2021, 10:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Brian123
AG95
Hey GMATNinja. Thanks for explaining it so cleanly. One question: in option A, it is giving a sense that thieved pilfer and see information, both happen in parallel. However in option D, it is giving sense that they are pilfering the information to sell. Option D makes more sense to me. hence, i picked option D. could you please throw more light on this?

AG95, there is a clear cut parallelism error in option D. Meaning wise, stealing and selling is not inherently worse than stealing to sell. A lot of thieves steal things for their own use and not necessarily for the purpose of selling. I can't see anything wrong with both the activities happening parallely and option D has a clear cut grammatical issue.
Show more
Nice work, Brian123!

Yeah, just because two verbs are parallel doesn't automatically mean that those two actions are happening at the same time. For example:

    "Tim wants to (1) steal a car and (2) drive to Mexico to start a new life."

This is parallel list of two things that Tim WANTS to do. From the context, we understand that Tim is going to steal the car BEFORE he drives to Mexico.

We have something similar in choice (A):

    "[Thieves] can also (1) pilfer valuable information {...} and (2) sell the data to competitors."

This is a parallel list of two things that the thieves CAN do. From the context, we understand that the thieves would have to pilfer the valuable information BEFORE selling that data to competitors.

Glad to see that you're thinking about meaning, but the parallelism in (A) is fine. And (D) has other issues, as explained by Brian123 and also in our original explanation.

I hope that helps!
avatar
gurmeet2022
avatar
Joined: 12 Sep 2015
Last visit: 14 Aug 2022
Posts: 12
Own Kudos:
3
Given Kudos: 46
Posts: 12
Kudos: 3
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 19 Jul 2021, 07:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
In reference to choice D

not only are thieves able to divert cash from company bank accounts, but also pilfer valuable information such as business development strategies, new product specifications, and contract bidding plans to sell the data to competitors.

Choice D is also wrong for the reason that "are thieves" are inside the "not only" and "but also" ......... Thieves should act as subject for X & Y......

Basically, my query is ..... in constructions like
......Subject....... not only X but also Y
The subject should match with X and Y.
i.e. ..... "Subject + X" and "Subject + Y" should make sense......

Am I right........?????
Please guide
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
As criminal activity on the Internet becomes more and more sophisticat 29 Jul 2021, 07:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
aritrar4
GMATNinja I really liked your explanation of the "not only / but also" rigidity that we tend to follow and how it is flexible in context of a sentence. However, I came across the below sentence in the MGMAT question bank which discarded a choice for not following the "not only / but also" idiom. Is "but" required to follow a "not only" in a sentence?

https://gmatclub.com/forum/not-only-did ... ml#p761279

Posted from my mobile device
Going back to what we said in an earlier post,

    "the not/but structure generally demands strict parallelism, but if one of those is missing, then it’s a totally different structure. You could have the word “not” without the “but”, and vice-versa... whenever you see a phrase with BOTH “not” and “but”, your priority is to think about parallelism first, and meaning second."

So if you HAVE a "not (only)/but (also)," then you need to check out the parallelism. That said, "but" is not required every time you see a "not only" in a sentence.

Keep in mind that the example you are referencing is not an official question, so I wouldn't get too hung up on it ;) .
Show more

Hi GMATNinja - i think what you said in the purple is difficult to digest because we are so accustomed to see Not Only ...But Also | Not Only ...But |

I have tried making some sentences with Not | Not only without the But and I found it strange !

For sentences with Not | Not only without the But, I am presuming parallelism is NOT IMPORTANT as the 2nd element in these sentences will always be a clause ?

i) Not only is Sam tall, Sam is strong [X element - clause | Y element - clause]
ii) Sam is not only tall, he is strong also [X element - adjective| Y element - clause]
iii) Sam is not tall, he is short [X element - adjective|Y element - clause]
iv) Samantha is not tired, she is full of energy [X element - adjective| Y element - clause]

Can I assume all these 4 sentences are accurate even though in sentence ii) | iii) and iv) - the X elements are adjectives whereas the Y element is always a clause ?
   1   2   3   4   5   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts