Quote:
Thanks GMATNinja, your explanations are very helpful. However, the "Odds and Even Strategy" chapter of Manhattan states this:
Do not use comma before "AND" to separate two verbs that have the same subject. Either eliminate the comma or add a subject to the second verb, creating a second main clause. Examples:
1. Earl walked to school, and later ate his lunch. (WRONG- "comma" should not be placed before AND)
2. Earl walked to school and later ate his lunch. (RIGHT)
3. Earl walked to school, and he later ate his lunch. (RIGHT)
This theory surely does contradict your statement that a comma can be applied for a pause. The application of comma in example number 1 above makes the statement wrong, as per Manhattan.
Could you please help understand what I am missing here. Thanks in advance.
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!