I'm sorry, my main question is not about parallelism, it's about 'those of', why is it not needed here for beneficiaries? is it because it's not a direct comparison?

Haryem, the presence of those of won't be wrong here IMO. The author just chose not to mention those of as he is trying to show a different meaning/comparison (the one I mentioned in my previous post).

Hi GMATNinja , daagh
I rejected C and E, because the statement between the dashes is trying to refer to the "shareholders expectation", while it should refer to "shareholder". So C and E is straight out.
Am I correct ??

Yup! Check out this post for an explanation of this issue in (C), and this post for an explanation of the same thing in (E).
_________________

Option C & E can be eliminated as both has "shareholder's expectation - a group". Here shareholder's expectation is not a group and thus can be eleminated.

Correct me if I am worng.

Hope it helps.

Thanks!

Hi, I have a question.

Why BUT is the conjunction? " but" is used to connect two ideas that are opposite...

The Monetary Fund have: struggled.. and neglected ...

I think and should be use instead of BUT...

I dont find the sense of the sentence.... Help me...

Hello valeriacastro11,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can resolve your doubt.

As the sentence mentions, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund's major shareholders are "a group comprising many of the world’s rich nations"; thus, the sentence subtly implies that the shareholders' expectations run counter to the interests of the organization's "intended beneficiaries".

Therefore the meaning we get is that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have failed to meet the expectations of the wealthy nations, but also neglected the countries in the developing world that they are supposed to help.

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

Te question was written with but, not with "but also"... the meaning is the same?

I feel your pain here. "Struggle" certainly can have a negative connotation, but here it seems to convey something positive, more like "strived to x" or "worked really hard to x." In other words, The World Bank and IMF worked really hard to meet shareholder expectations, but basically did the opposite for the intended beneficiaries.

In another context, "struggled to meet the needs" could very well mean "tried and failed to meet the needs," so the real question is how the heck are you supposed to know what the writer intended? And the answer is that you might not know at first. The key is to either 1) hang on to the answer if there's a possibility of a logical interpretation, even if you're unsure or 2) return to this answer once you realize all of the other options have a concrete error.

I hope that helps a bit!
_________________

In the options C & E does the phrase after dash correctly modifies the major shareholders??
I think it???s incorrect as it tries to modify the expectations

GMATNinja plz help

Hello SushantSaini,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, the modification in these two answer choices is, indeed, incorrect.

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