Skywalker18 wrote:
Corporations will soon be required to report to the government whether they have the necessary reserves to pay the pension benefits
earned by their employees and that the information be published in annual reports to shareholders.
(A) earned by their employees and that the information be published - parallelism issue
(B) that their employees earned and that the information be published - here second choice will read as pension benefits that the information be published - parallelism issue
(C) that was earned by their employees with the information being published - subject verb agreement - benefits required were , also usage of with gives non-sensical meaning
(D) earned by their employees, information that must also be published
(E) earned by their employees and published the information -
"E again has a parallelism problem. Can't match it up with "whether they have" because "whether they have" is in present tense, while "have published" would be present perfect. If you're going to reuse "have" for a present perfect construction, then the first part also needs to be written in present perfect.
(Example: She has written three books and published two. "has written... and (has) published.") Eliminate. " - This is Stacey's explanation(
MGMAT) on BTG
Past tense “published” is cannot follow “to” and to logically make “to require” and “to publish” parallel.-
eGMAT's explanation for E
But in my opinion - the 2 parallel elements in E are -
whether
they have the necessary reserves to pay the pension benefits earned by their employees
and (have) published the information
Whereas , as per
e-gmat explanation , it seems that- pension benefits earned by their employees (Verb ed modifier)
and published the information ( pension benefits published is non- sensical )
Dear
Skywalker18,
I'm happy to respond.
This SC question, like all the official questions, is absolutely brilliant. As someone who writes questions professionally, I am always in awe of the official questions! The OA, choice (D), is a paragon of elegance and well-spoken expression. Choice (E) is a brilliant trap answer for folks who think narrowly and mechanically about parallelism.
In the narrow sense, (E) appears grammatically correct, because the two participles, "
earned . . . and published" appear to be in parallel. There's no obvious grammar flaw there. It would be fine to say:
The CEO of the multinational XYZ has the highest salary of any CEO, earned in euros and published in Forbes.
In that sentence, the two participles are correctly in parallel.
The problem is that, in this SC problem, choice (E)
changes the meaning. Part of what the prompt conveys is that the "
earning" is
already happening, but the "
publishing" of this information is
something new that the law is going to require. These two participles have matching grammatical forms, so they appear parallel, but ultimately, parallelism is NOT a grammatical construction. Parallelism is a
logical construction, and the matching grammar serves to make clear the underlying logical pattern. These two actions are not logically parallel, because one already is happening and the other is going to be required to happen. Stating them in parallel as choice (E) has implies that they both are already happening, and this contradicts the information from the prompt. That's why people say have been calling this version "nonsense," because it uses the superficial appearance of parallelism to create a meaning that complete departs from the prompt.
Remember,
the GMAT SC is NOT a test of grammar. Instead, on the GMAT SC, grammar and
logic and
rhetoric all have to come together to produce meaning. A well constructed sentence is one in which the meaning is supported grammatically, logically, and rhetorically, and the GMAT wants to know that you can identify such well constructed sentences. Official questions such as this one are designed, among other things, to punish students who focus exclusively on grammar, to the neglect of the other elements.
Does all this make sense?
Mike