Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 03:26 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 03:26
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 
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
Before Colette, the female writers of France had been aristocrats 07 Oct 2022, 09:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
RonTargetTestPrep


• If BOTH "X" and "Y" are ABSENT/FALSE, then you can write any of these:
neither X nor Y
not X and not Y
no X and no Y
no X or Y.

"No X or no Y" is a totally different, and much weaker, statement—declaring only that we don't have both of these things.

Show more


Hi RonTargetTestPrep – thank you for this. I agree from a Boolean logic perspective: No (X or Y) is not the same as (No X or No Y) which is not the same as (No X) OR (Y) - all 3 structures are different .

In (A) -- the structure is No X or Y

I believe there could 3 interepretations for this

(interpretation 1) -- (No X) or (Y)
(Interpretation 2) -- No (X or Y)
(Interpretation 3) -- No X or (No) Y -- here, the "No" is part of the parallel root phase marker and thus the "No" applies to both the X marker and the Y marker.

Given the 3 plausible interpretations of the structure in (A) - No X or Y - as mentioned above --

I preferred the structure in (e), which is (No X) or (No Y)

The structure in (e) [(No X) or (No Y)] does not lead to double or triple interpretations, unlike the structure in (A)

Thoughts on why the structure of No X or Y [as seen in A] -- could NOT lead to double or triple interpretations ?
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
Before Colette, the female writers of France had been aristocrats 10 Oct 2022, 07:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi GMATGuruNY ReedArnoldMPREP GMATNinjaTwo AjiteshArun AnthonyRitz GraceSCKao RonTargetTestPrep GMATNinja

Reading from many experts above - apparently, Subject verb cannot be used to eliminate (Which suprised me)

So with Subject - verb off the table - I could eliminate (B), (C), (D) using other ways.

Between (A) and (E) however - i preffered (E)

Reason -

(A) has a 'multiple interpretation' problem IMO

Specifically - In (A) -- the structure is No X or Y

I believe there could 3 interepretations for this structure (using the rules of parallelism)

(interpretation 1) -- (No X) or (Y)
(Interpretation 2) -- No (X or Y)
(Interpretation 3) -- No X or (No) Y -- here, the "No" is part of the parallel root phase marker and thus the "No" applies to both the X marker and the Y marker.

Given the 3 plausible interpretations laid out above re: the structure in (A) - No X or Y -

I preferred the structure in (e), which is (No X) or (No Y)

The structure in (e) [(No X) or (No Y)] does not lead to double or triple interpretations, unlike the structure in (A)

Thoughts on why the structure of No X or Y [as seen in A] -- could NOT lead to double or triple interpretations ?
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
536
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 536
Before Colette, the female writers of France had been aristocrats 10 Oct 2022, 12:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
Hi GMATGuruNY ReedArnoldMPREP GMATNinjaTwo AjiteshArun AnthonyRitz GraceSCKao RonTargetTestPrep GMATNinja

Reading from many experts above - apparently, Subject verb cannot be used to eliminate (Which suprised me)

So with Subject - verb off the table - I could eliminate (B), (C), (D) using other ways.

Between (A) and (E) however - i preffered (E)

Reason -

(A) has a 'multiple interpretation' problem IMO

Specifically - In (A) -- the structure is No X or Y

I believe there could 3 interepretations for this structure (using the rules of parallelism)

(interpretation 1) -- (No X) or (Y)
(Interpretation 2) -- No (X or Y)
(Interpretation 3) -- No X or (No) Y -- here, the "No" is part of the parallel root phase marker and thus the "No" applies to both the X marker and the Y marker.

Given the 3 plausible interpretations laid out above re: the structure in (A) - No X or Y -

I preferred the structure in (e), which is (No X) or (No Y)

The structure in (e) [(No X) or (No Y)] does not lead to double or triple interpretations, unlike the structure in (A)

Thoughts on why the structure of No X or Y [as seen in A] -- could NOT lead to double or triple interpretations ?
Show more

As Ron explained above: "There was no A or no B" implies that EITHER was missing, but not BOTH were missing. "There was no taco or no burger served at the restaurant" allows for either a taco or a burger (but not both) to be served. If neither was served, I should say "There were no tacos or burgers served."

As to your last question, it just seems somewhat idiomatic. "There was no (X) or (Y)" never means "There was (no X) or (Y)." You could argue there is a parallelism issue with that formulation. Parallelism must be logically parallel. "No x" is the absence of something, 'Y' is the presence of something. Those cannot be in logical parallel form.
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
Before Colette, the female writers of France had been aristocrats Updated on: 10 Oct 2022, 18:12
Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 10 Oct 2022, 17:35.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 10 Oct 2022, 18:12, edited 7 times in total.
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ReedArnoldMPREP


As Ron explained above: "There was no A or no B" implies that EITHER was missing, but not BOTH were missing. "There was no taco or no burger served at the restaurant" allows for either a taco or a burger (but not both) to be served. If neither was served, I should say "There were no tacos or burgers served."

As to your last question, it just seems somewhat idiomatic. "There was no (X) or (Y)" never means "There was (no X) or (Y)." You could argue there is a parallelism issue with that formulation. Parallelism must be logically parallel. "No x" is the absence of something, 'Y' is the presence of something. Those cannot be in logical parallel form.
Show more

Hi ReedArnoldMPREP - thank you for the response in the yellow. Just sticking with the structure - No X or Y.

You mention per the yellow, interpretation # 1 is not a legitimate interpretation because interpretation #1 is not logically parallel [I agree !]

What about interpretation # 3 though ? Is interpreation # 3 also not parallel in your view ?

I know in parallelism nouns and verbs can be a part of the root [hence the verbs or the nouns are applicable to the X marker and the Y marker]

Is "No", not something that can be part of the root phrase because "No" is an adjective and adjectives cannot be part of the root ?
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
536
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 536
Before Colette, the female writers of France had been aristocrats 11 Oct 2022, 06:00
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
ReedArnoldMPREP


As Ron explained above: "There was no A or no B" implies that EITHER was missing, but not BOTH were missing. "There was no taco or no burger served at the restaurant" allows for either a taco or a burger (but not both) to be served. If neither was served, I should say "There were no tacos or burgers served."

As to your last question, it just seems somewhat idiomatic. "There was no (X) or (Y)" never means "There was (no X) or (Y)." You could argue there is a parallelism issue with that formulation. Parallelism must be logically parallel. "No x" is the absence of something, 'Y' is the presence of something. Those cannot be in logical parallel form.

Hi ReedArnoldMPREP - thank you for the response in the yellow. Just sticking with the structure - No X or Y.

You mention per the yellow, interpretation # 1 is not a legitimate interpretation because interpretation #1 is not logically parallel [I agree !]

What about interpretation # 3 though ? Is interpreation # 3 also not parallel in your view ?

I know in parallelism nouns and verbs can be a part of the root [hence the verbs or the nouns are applicable to the X marker and the Y marker]

Is "No", not something that can be part of the root phrase because "No" is an adjective and adjectives cannot be part of the root ?
Show more

So this is going to get very abstract very quickly, in a way that is deeper than you'll need to get for the GMAT.

But a negation of 'or' actually leads to 'and.'

"There is no tea or coffee" is logically equivalent to "There is no tea and no coffee."

"There is no tea and coffee" (...that's probably not grammatically correct, one should probably say "There is not tea and coffee"... or "There are not tea and coffee"? IDK this sentence is weird) means "There is not tea or there is not coffee (or there is neither...)"

We're getting into predicate logic, here, at a deeper level than the GMAT requires.

I would just say with a negation at the onset of parallelism with 'or' or 'and' you don't distribute the negation to 'both,' it's negating the entire structure.

"No x or y" means "(not x) and (not y)"

"not x and y" means "(no x) or (no y) or (neither x nor y)"

"No x or no y" means "either (not x) or (not y) (but probably not 'neither x nor y'... though in the purest logic, the 'neither' case is also allowed here)."

"Not x but y" means "(No x) and y"
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
Before Colette, the female writers of France had been aristocrats 11 Oct 2022, 07:03
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thank you so much ReedArnoldMPREP RonTargetTestPrep

The challenge is to understand when do the rules of parallelism apply and/or when does boolean logic apply

Let me explain

In a simple sentence like this

Quote:

Original - I drink Sweet tea or coffee

I believe this sentence would be wrong because there are 3 interpretations

(Interpretation 1) I drink (Sweet tea) or (coffee)
(Interpretation 2) I drink Sweet (tea or coffee)
(Interpretation 3) I drink Sweet tea or (Sweet) coffee
Show more

But if i understand, this sentence for some strange reason is okay.

Quote:

Original - I drink Sweet No Tea or Coffee
Show more

Why - because for some reason, boolean logic takes over and we are supposed to assume, there is only one interepretation of this sentence.

I think its because of the presence of the "No" that somehow we are supposed to assume - boolean logic is in play whereas in the first sentence above -- boolean logic is NOT in play

OR

Perhaps, both my sentences are okay

Not sure
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
536
 [1]
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 536
 [1]
Before Colette, the female writers of France had been aristocrats 11 Oct 2022, 10:02
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
Thank you so much ReedArnoldMPREP RonTargetTestPrep

The challenge is to understand when do the rules of parallelism apply and/or when does boolean logic apply

Let me explain

In a simple sentence like this

Quote:

Original - I drink Sweet tea or coffee

I believe this sentence would be wrong because there are 3 interpretations

(Interpretation 1) I drink (Sweet tea) or (coffee)
(Interpretation 2) I drink Sweet (tea or coffee)
(Interpretation 3) I drink Sweet tea or (Sweet) coffee

But if i understand, this sentence for some strange reason is okay.

Quote:

Original - I drink Sweet No Tea or Coffee

Why - because for some reason, boolean logic takes over and we are supposed to assume, there is only one interepretation of this sentence.

I think its because of the presence of the "No" that somehow we are supposed to assume - boolean logic is in play whereas in the first sentence above -- boolean logic is NOT in play

OR

Perhaps, both my sentences are okay

Not sure
Show more

I'll be totally honest, I don't fully understand what we're even discussing anymore, and it doesn't seem like a particularly fruitful GMAT discussion. We're into hypotheticals whose connection to the real test are vague, exceedingly rare, and possibly non-existent.

"I drink Sweet tea or coffee" is a perfectly correct sentence and would mean "I drink: (sweet tea) and (coffee)." But this is because 'sweet tea' is a very well known drink.

So take something like "I like pretty castles and flowers." You're dancing around 'whether an adjective can be the main crux of a root phrase' and 'is 'no' an adjective and what does it describe when part of parallelism?'

To the first I'd say, "probably? but carefully and rarely and it's certainly not what I see often on the test." To the second I'd say 'no, negations like 'no,' 'never,' or 'none' (and words like 'every,' 'all,' or 'each') are inherently Boolean.

So "I like pretty castles and flowers," are the 'flowers' pretty? Or just the castle? I don't know--and I have a hard time thinking of an official question that tests something like this.

But "I prefer no castles or flowers" is clear, because 'no' is not an adjective like 'pretty.'

If I really, really wanted to say "I want (no x) or (y)," I think it would help to put the negative *second*, maybe? "On my cereal, I like to put in milk or no liquid." But this is not something I've seen very often.
User avatar
NehaKalani
User avatar
Joined: 31 Mar 2022
Last visit: 05 Nov 2024
Posts: 18
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 39
Posts: 18
Kudos: 9
Before Colette, the female writers of France had been aristocrats 14 Jan 2023, 02:11
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
EMPOWERgmatVerbal
Hello Everyone!

Let's tackle this question, one thing at a time, to quickly narrow down our choices to the right one! To begin, scan through the question and highlight the major differences we can find in orange:

Before Colette, the female writers of France had been aristocrats, from Mme de Lafayette to Anne de Noailles; there were no Jane Austens or Brontë sisters, perhaps because there were almost no clergymen’s daughters.

(A) were no Jane Austens or
(B) were not Jane Austens or
(C) was not Jane Austen nor the
(D) was not a Jane Austen or the
(E) was no Jane Austen or no

After a quick glance over the options, there are a few places we can focus on:

1. were vs. was
2. no vs. not
3. or / nor the / or the / or no

Let's start with #1 on our list: were vs. was. No matter which one we choose, it will eliminate 2-3 options rather quickly. We need to make sure that whichever verb we choose can apply to BOTH sets of people listed - not just the first one that's listed. To make this easier to spot, let's add "Brontë sisters" to each option:

(A) were no Jane Austens or Brontë sisters ("were" works with both items because they're both plural)
(B) were not Jane Austens or Brontë sisters ("were" works with both items because they're both plural)
(C) was not Jane Austen nor the Brontë sisters (singular "was" doesn't work with plural "sisters")
(D) was not a Jane Austen or the Brontë sisters (singular "was" doesn't work with plural "sisters")
(E) was no Jane Austen or no Brontë sisters (singular "was" doesn't work with plural "sisters")

We can eliminate options C, D, & E because they use a singular verb with the plural Brontë sisters.

Now that we have it narrowed down to only 2 options, let's look at the only difference we have left: no vs. not. This is an idiom issue! When we say that we're lacking two sets of things, there is a certain way we express that in English:

There were no Xs or Ys = CORRECT
There were not Xs or Ys = INCORRECT

Let's see how our options break down:

(A) were no Jane Austens or
(B) were not Jane Austens or

There you have it - option A was the correct choice all along! By focusing on the key differences, we were able to eliminate a lot of options right off the bat, leaving us with only a simple decision to make in the end!


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.
Show more

Question:

Does this mean, because we are exemplifying with two sets of items/people, this structure - "There was no X or Y" is always wrong?
Does it always have to be There WERE no X or Y?
User avatar
brt
User avatar
Joined: 17 Feb 2019
Last visit: 31 Jul 2024
Posts: 49
Own Kudos:
19
Given Kudos: 157
Posts: 49
Kudos: 19
Before Colette, the female writers of France had been aristocrats 22 Jan 2023, 06:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Before Colette, the female writers of France had been aristocrats, from Mme de Lafayette to Anne de Noailles; there were no Jane Austens or Brontë sisters, perhaps because there were almost no clergymen’s daughters.

(A) were no Jane Austens or
(B) were not Jane Austens or
(C) was not Jane Austen nor the
(D) was not a Jane Austen or the
(E) was no Jane Austen or no

female writers so the verb has to be were. from A and B the ans is A because of parallelism between no jane austens and no clergymens daughters and were no is idiomatically correct compared to were not.
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,020
Own Kudos:
8,563
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,020
Kudos: 8,563
Before Colette, the female writers of France had been aristocrats 31 Jan 2023, 14:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
NehaKalani


Question:

Does this mean, because we are exemplifying with two sets of items/people, this structure - "There was no X or Y" is always wrong?
Does it always have to be There WERE no X or Y?
Show more

No, it depends on the situation. It would be fine to say "There was no soap or hand sanitizer in the bathroom." Notice that both here and in the correct answer to the SC question, the two nouns are BOTH singular or BOTH plural, so we have a clear cue to use WAS (for two separate singulars) or WERE (for two separate plurals).

So what about a mix of singular and plural? Can we say "There was no soap or paper towels in the bathroom?" That strikes me as wrong, so I'd find a way to rewrite, but as Ron points out in the discussion above from October 2022, the GMAT isn't likely to test this kind of edge case, since there's no clear right way to do it.
User avatar
Elite097
User avatar
Joined: 20 Apr 2022
Last visit: 08 Oct 2025
Posts: 771
Own Kudos:
553
Given Kudos: 346
Location: India
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
GPA: 3.64
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
Posts: 771
Kudos: 553
Before Colette, the female writers of France had been aristocrats 15 May 2023, 23:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ReedArnoldMPREP @ronpuruwel RonTargetTestPrep DmitryFarber so can you please confirm the final logic when we have an inverted structure like this one with a compound subject- do we not follow the proximity rule at all and instead rely on both being plurall or singular for the purpose of GMAT? So do we have to see based on both the subjects which verb to use or can we look at ay one?
User avatar
ReedArnoldMPREP
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 30 Apr 2021
Last visit: 20 Dec 2024
Posts: 521
Own Kudos:
536
Given Kudos: 37
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47
Posts: 521
Kudos: 536
Before Colette, the female writers of France had been aristocrats 16 May 2023, 08:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Elite097
ReedArnoldMPREP @ronpuruwel RonTargetTestPrep DmitryFarber so can you please confirm the final logic when we have an inverted structure like this one with a compound subject- do we not follow the proximity rule at all and instead rely on both being plurall or singular for the purpose of GMAT? So do we have to see based on both the subjects which verb to use or can we look at ay one?
Show more

I don't think the GMAT ever asks questions about compound subjects when the subjects do not match. I might be wrong, but it is exceedingly rare.
User avatar
Iwillget770
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2023
Last visit: 10 May 2024
Posts: 101
Own Kudos:
1,200
Given Kudos: 65
Posts: 101
Kudos: 1,200
Before Colette, the female writers of France had been aristocrats 05 Aug 2023, 11:18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
Before Colette, the female writers of France had been aristocrats, from Mme de Lafayette to Anne de Noailles; there were no Jane Austens or Brontë sisters, perhaps because there were almost no clergymen’s daughters.

(A) were no Jane Austens or
(B) were not Jane Austens or
(C) was not Jane Austen nor the
(D) was not a Jane Austen or the
(E) was no Jane Austen or no

SC42561.01
Show more

Hi ReedArnoldMPREP

In the above question,
had been is PAST PERFECT or SIMPLE PAST tense

If had been is PAST PERFECT tense then we need simple past tense to complete the time sequence. Is BEFORE Colette acting as the SIMPLE PAST tense ?

Regards
User avatar
DmitryFarber
User avatar
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Last visit: 08 Nov 2025
Posts: 3,020
Own Kudos:
8,563
 [2]
Given Kudos: 57
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85
Posts: 3,020
Kudos: 8,563
 [2]
Before Colette, the female writers of France had been aristocrats 05 Aug 2023, 22:22
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Iwillget770

"Had been" always creates past perfect, and yes, the "before Colette" part serves as the past time marker. It's not a verb, so it's not in past tense. All we need is some past point or event for our past perfect action to precede.
   1   2   3 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts