At the end of 2001, motion picture industry representatives said that

Although I expected the second that for the question to be parallel doesn't the presence of ", and" mean that what follows must be an independent sentence? I don't understand how E is correct if that grammatical rule is correct.

Would agree @PelumiOgunlana; one way to look at it is that since there is no independent sentence after and, the presence or absence of a comma (before and) would not really matter.

In other words, if there is an independent sentence after and, in that case the presence/absence of a comma does make a difference in meaning interpretation.

Jack said that Peter studies hard and Michael does not.
- The absence of a comma before and seems to suggest that the above sentence is equivalent to: Jack said that Peter studies hard and that Michael does not.

Jack said that Peter studies hard, and Michael does not.
- The presence of a comma before and seems to suggest that the above sentence is giving us two different pieces of information:
i) Jack said that Peter studies hard
ii) Michael does not.

Would also be interesting to see what others have to say about this.
_________________

When it comes to comma usage, there are common conventions, but very few rules, so you want to be careful about being too rigid in your analysis. (And ideally, you wouldn't rely on faulty comma usage at all when looking for reasons to eliminate an answer. If you'd like a full hour on GMAT punctuation, you could suffer through this video.)

So the Manhattan guide is certainly correct about the convention. You wouldn't want to use a comma to separate two actions performed by the subject, unless you had a good reason. If a comma makes the meaning clearer, you'd want to use one. Clarity is always good!

Consider two examples:

On Tuesdays Tim cooks for his children and then stays home with his bedridden kids the next day.

Here, Tim performs two actions, and because the sentence is fairly simple and doesn't introduce a new subject, there's no reason to use a comma here. Would it be a concrete error to use one? It would be suspect usage, and I'd be very surprised if you saw such a construction in a correct answer on the GMAT, but I'd hesitate to say it's a strict grammatical error.

But now consider a second, slightly more complicated example:

Tom cooks for his children on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and stays home with his bedridden kids on Thursdays.

This time, I'd argue that it's fair game to use a comma after "Wednesdays." While you don't need it, the comma helps the reader see that an idea is complete -- for example, we're not about to see something like "Tuesdays and Wednesdays and alternate Saturdays," but rather, a new action is about to be introduced. Of course, another writer might argue that the comma is superfluous. It's really a matter of taste.

The point is that none of this is ironclad. That's what makes language so complicated and SC so maddening.

So rather than internalizing a list of scenarios for when a comma is allowed, just be in the habit of asking yourself about clarity and meaning in general. If the comma confuses you, and another option eliminates a comma in a way that creates a logical sentence, this could certainly qualify as a valid decision point. But if the comma doesn't confuse you, and you find yourself agonizing about whether the comma is acceptable in a given construction, look for other issues.

In other words: when it comes to comma usage, there's simply too much gray to be able to rely strictly on a list of conventions.

i hope that helps!
_________________

dear AndrewN
I picked up D because I thought the verb "expect" implies something will happen in the future, or just something will come in the future, in D "internet will become more widely available" can logically match the "increase" in the future. considering what the representatives said is in the past, so we need "expected" and "would", I thought D cannot eliminate because of "would".

I think there must be some reasoning bug, but I have no idea.

also, I don't have an efficient way to pick up between "expect the increase of piracy" and "expect piracy to increase". DmitryFarber points out "the", honestly speaking, "the" is tough for me, and some experts say GMAT won't test "the", so Andrew, I am curious how you pick up between these two, not considering the use of "the".

appreciate for your help.

dear AndrewN, can I say it's better to prefer expect + object + verb when I encounter expect + object + verb and expect + noun + of ?
or some other verbs except expect ?

In general, a verb form in such a context is preferred over a prepositional form to express a similar idea. I would suggest you take note of any exceptions you may encounter along the course of your studies, but by and large, a verb clearly conveys the action that a subject took, while a prepositional phrase hides that same action within more words than are necessary to use.

- Andrew
_________________

This sentence tells us what the representatives expected (past) as something happened (also past). For example:

They expect piracy to increase as high-speed Internet connections become more widely available.
We should look at this as a process.

If we take the sentence above and shift it into the past, we get:
They expected piracy to increase as high-speed Internet connections became more widely available.[/quote]

Is this sentence correct?

They expect piracy to increase as high-speed Internet connections will become more widely available.

Hello, ghost07gems. I saw your query in the chatroom as well, but I thought I would answer here, since my writing style lends itself to this format a little better. I saw that nightblade354 had advised against the use of will in the above sentence. That advice was correct. The reason is that an expectation is understood to project into the future, without employing the future tense:

1) I expect it to rain today.

2) He expects her to marry him.

Moreover, notice that in the original sentence, the one about piracy, as is serving to denote a concurrent action, and the first action is increase, not will increase—piracy is expected to increase as high-speed connections become more commonplace. Even if the future tense were acceptable, it would not be preferred within such a projection (i.e. the expectation), since will adds nothing in the way of vital meaning that the infinitive does not already convey.

I hope that helps clarify the matter. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
_________________

Hi,

I rejected choice E simply because 'and that they expected' is preceded by the comma, and I thought that when you have to parallel lists with and comma is not required. Can someone help clarify why 'said that...., and that....' is acceptable.

Hi filmpaniti,

Generally speaking, although there are some things that the GMAT does test, like comma splices, it is actually quite risky to use most comma "rules" to eliminate options in GMAT SC questions. I'm not sure which rule you were trying to apply here, but you should not use it going forward.
_________________

I understand that below question is related in past, so ''expected'' and ''became'' is correct. Alternatively would below sentence be also correct?

"At the end of 2001, motion picture industry representatives said that there were about a million copies of Hollywood movies available online and that they expect piracy to increase as high-speed Internet connections become more widely available."

Can above sentence work , it projects into future by stating that high speed internet connection usage would increase in future, piracy would further increase. Will this work?

Hollywood Movies



(A) Parallelism (X and Y); Meaning

(B) Parallelism (X and Y); Meaning

(C) Meaning

(D) Verb / Meaning

(E) CORRECT



First glance

The clue here is very subtle. Each answer begins with the same two words (online and) but some choices place a comma between the two and some don’t. Something is going on with the structure of the sentence, which could be overall Sentence Structure or something more specific such as Parallelism or Modifiers. The word and indicates that the issue might be with Sentence Structure or Parallelism.



Issues

(1) Parallelism: X and Y

The original sentence contains this X and Y construction: there were a million copies … and expected piracy to increase.

The Y portion begins with a verb (expected), so the subject needs to come from the X portion. The X portion is an inverted sentence (the subject is placed after the verb), so the subject is a million copies—but it’s illogical to say that the copies expected piracy to increase. Logically, the representatives expected this. But representatives can’t be the subject for the Y portion; the structure of the sentence prohibits this:

Representatives said that there were a million copies … and expected piracy to increase.

This structure is Subject Verb THAT Subject Verb and Verb. In this construction, the first subject-verb pairing, before the word that, is essentially blocked off as its own structure. The and Verb parallelism cannot jump over the word that to go back to the first subject and verb. Answer (B) also has this same construction, so eliminate (A) and (B) for faulty parallelism.

The remaining choices all introduce an appropriate subject for the Y portion: the pronoun they, referring back to the representatives. The parallelism is now correct: representatives said X and Y, where X and Y are complete sentences. Look for another difference among the answers.

(2) Meaning / Verb

You may have noticed another issue in the original sentence. The final portion of the sentence is a bit unclear.

expected piracy to increase with high-speed Internet connections that become more widely available

The logical meaning is that, as high-speed Internet becomes more available, people will find it easier to download stolen content and, therefore, piracy will increase. In other words, one event causes the other.

The original sentence, however, does not actually state any kind of cause-effect relationship. It just says that both things are expected to happen at the same time. You’ve already eliminated choice (A), but check the remaining choices for this same issue.

(C) they expect more piracy to increase with the wider availability …

(D) they expected the increase of piracy as high-speed connections would become more widely available

(E) they expected piracy to increase as high-speed connections became more widely available

Answer (C) does have a meaning problem: more and increase mean the same thing, so it is redundant to use both words. It also uses the same with language as (A) and (B)—in other words, it doesn’t establish a cause-effect relationship. Eliminate (C) for faulty meaning.

Answers (D) and (E) both use as to indicate a cause-effect relationship. There are some other differences, though. First, examine expected the increase of piracy vs. expected piracy to increase. What’s the difference in meaning between She expected the increase of her salary and She expected her salary to increase?

In the first case, her salary already increased in the past (as she expected it to). In the second case, at some point in the past, she thought that her salary was going to increase in the future.

If the expected increase already occurred, as choice (D) says, then it’s not appropriate to say that high-speed connections would become more widely available. They must have already become more widely available in order for the increase in piracy to have occurred. Eliminate choice (D) for illogical meaning.

The Correct Answer

Correct answer (E) employs a parallel structure (representatives said X and Y). It also conveys a clear and logical meaning. The reps expected piracy to increase at some time in the future, after the reps made that statement, and this would occur because (as) high-speed Internet became more widely available.

Hello VIGHNESHKAMATH,

We hope this finds you well.

The sentence provided by you is still not correct, as it uses the simple past tense verb phrase "that there were", establishing that the representatives' statement refers to events that concluded in the past. Moreover, the use of the modifier "At the end of 2001" also establishes that the sentence refers ot past events; it would not make much sense to say that "At the end of 2001, representatives said that there are about a million copies of Hollywood movies available online."

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

We see questions like this all the time, and 100% agree with @AjiteshArun's response.

As we wrote earlier this week on another thread: in some cases, you absolutely NEED a comma. But in other cases, a comma might be used just to break up a long, confusing sentence. In those cases, it's best to be conservative and look for other decision points.

Check out the link above for other examples in which the correct answer uses "extra" commas for clarity.

I hope that helps a bit!
_________________

Can someone please explain how the usage of would is incorrect in option D?

Hi Vaishali2004,

This sentence tells us what the representatives expected (past) as something happened (also past). We don't need would as the past of will here. For example:

They expect piracy to increase as high-speed Internet connections become more widely available.
We should look at this as a process.

If we take the sentence above and shift it into the past, we get:
They expected piracy to increase as high-speed Internet connections became more widely available.
_________________

There is an implicit cause and effect depicted in the usage of "as" here; incidentally, the effect ("they expected..") is mentioned before the cause ("high-speed Internet connections became more widely available...").

In such cases, "would/will" is almost never used in the "cause" part (this is also true for "conditional statements", primarily those that use "if").

For example:

As the pandemic spreads, people will get more cautious.
- Notice that this sentence is actually talking about "future", but still, does not use "will/would" in the "cause" part.

So, following would not be a great construct:

As the pandemic will spread, people will get more cautious.
_________________

It's hard to talk about the use of "would" without looking at the rest of the sentence. First, check out this subtle difference between (D) and (E):

• (E) "[motion picture industry representatives said] that they expected piracy to increase" - The representatives were expecting something to happen. But that something (an increase in piracy) hadn't happened yet when the action of "expecting" took place -- the representatives weren't sure whether piracy would actually increase.
• (D) "[motion picture industry representatives said] that they expected the increase of piracy" - There's something funky about, "they expected THE increase." This makes the reader think, "wait, did this increase already happen, as the representatives expected it to? Or is the meaning the same as in choice (E)?" The intended meaning is now less clear, and that gives us one vote against (D).

The "would" makes this issue even worse. It implies that the high-speed Internet connections have not yet become more widely available (and that they WOULD become more widely available in the future). So if the "becoming more widely available" part hasn't happened yet, does that mean that the "increase of piracy" part hasn't happened yet either? Or, as described above, are we talking about THE increase that already happened?

Because "would" creates a meaning that's certainly confusing and arguably illogical, we can kill (D).

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hi experts, MartyTargetTestPrep mgmat GMATNinja egmat
In A, Is "that become" is correct?
because we are talking in past and become represents present- isn't it a tense mismatch?

In D, many people are saying "would become" is wrong?
How? beacuse it could be a case that representatives were thinking of a hypothetical case? makes sense to me!
we use would in past timeline to indicate a hypothetical case
How would is wrong here?