During the 1980s it became clear that soliciting private funds was far

Question

During the 1980's it became clear  that soliciting private funds was far more efficient for environmentalists who sought financial aid  than to go to state or federal agencies.

(A) that soliciting private funds was far more efficient for environmentalists who sought financial aid

(B) that for environmentalists who sought financial aid, it was far more efficient to solicit private funds

(C) that for environmentalists seeking financial aid, private organizations were far more efficient to go to

(D) for environmentalists seeking financial aid, going to private organizations was far more efficient

(E) for environmentalists who sought financial aid, private organizations were far more efficient

santivilla · Accepted Answer

@maybeam

First off!

Be aware of  Comparison Signals :

like
unlike
more than
less than
faster than
different from
in contrast to/with
as
as (adj.) as
as much as
as little as
as fast as
the same as

Whenever you see one of these words, stop and find the two items being compared. Ensure that these two parts are truly parallel, both structurally and logically.

In this case think what is being compared and always remmember that  meaning  is the first thing that should be on your mind when reading SC.

Ask yourself, what is more efficient. "to solicit private funds' is parallel to 'to go to' and therefore the comparison is grammatically correct. 
Placement of the phrase 'to solicit private funds' between 'more' and 'than' is required for proper and clear comparison is therefore necessary in this sentence.

Cheers!

GMAT TIGER · Answer

(B) that for environmentalists who sought financial aid, it was far more efficient to solicit private funds

abhinav24 · Answer

A)  soliciting private funds  is not || to ' to go to state '
B) || ism is followed. (semms correct).
C) sentence is awkward and wordy. (private organizations were far more efficient to go to than to go to state or federal agencies)
D) Using for is not correct is this sentence. This sentence seems to be incomplete. ( During the 1980s it became clear for environmentalists seeking financial aid, going to private organizations was far more efficient ).  'that'  is required to complete the sentence.
E) Same reason as D.

IMO B.

People please comment on the explanation as I am not that sure.

scthakur · Answer

Another B.

(A) that soliciting private funds was far more efficient for environmentalists who sought financial aid  "gerund and infinitive in parallelism" 
 (B) that for environmentalists who sought financial aid, it was far more efficient to solicit private funds 
(C) that for environmentalists seeking financial aid, private organizations were far more efficient to go to  "changes meaning" 
(D) for environmentalists seeking financial aid, going to private organizations was far more efficient  "similar issue as in A" 
(E) for environmentalists who sought financial aid, private organizations were far more efficient   "issue of parallelism"

leonidas · Answer

"issue of parallelism"

Agree, will go for (B) also.

mymba99 · Answer

A - When I read A, I kind of expected this pattern - X was far more efficient FOR A......than FOR B. But I don't see that pattern.--Out
B - It = To Solicit...etc ;  To Solicit  parallel with  to go to  --- Good
C - X were far more efficient  to go to than to go to Y  (awkward)
 Should have been - To go to X was far more efficient than to go to. ---Out
D - It became clear for X THAT going to .....etc. But THAT is missing.
 Also, "GOING" to X was far more efficient than "TO GO TO" . You can see the parallelism error. Should have been Going to X was far more efficient than Going to Y. ----Out
E - Comparison error. Organizations are compared with the action of going.
 "Private organizations" more efficient than "to go to". ---Out
B Wins

maybeam · Answer

During the 1980s it became clear  that soliciting private funds was far more efficient for environmentalists who sought financial aid  than to go to state or federal agencies.
(A) that soliciting private funds was far more efficient for environmentalists who sought financial aid
(B) that for environmentalists who sought financial aid, it was far more efficient to solicit private funds
(C) that for environmentalists seeking financial aid, private organizations were far more efficient to go to
(D) for environmentalists seeking financial aid, going to private organizations was far more efficient
(E) for environmentalists who sought financial aid, private organizations were far more efficient

dvinoth86 · Answer

OA is B.

The key to comparison questions is parallelism and entities being compared.
Always pick out the entities being compared and check whether both the entities can be ompared

C is wrong because it is comparing pvt equity(noun) with "to go to" (verb)

jlgdr · Answer

Let me try to explain this one. Ok, here we go. First of all. We need clear THAT. So D and E are out ROTB. Now, let's check out ABC, mind you? So first take a look at the off-phrase. It seems as we are making a comparison here. So we want it to be parallel right? So this part environentalists who sought financial aid should be in the front, and then have the other part of the sentence later so the comparison can be more appropiately? Do I explain myself clearly? Check out answer chouce B, that for the E who sought FA, it was far more eff to SPV than to go . Here in bold is the parallelism we want. Note that the first part was taken out of the way. So here B is our right answer Hope it helps Make some Kudos rain if you liked it Cheers J

aragonn · Answer

Official Explanation: 
The underlined portion of the sentence contains the comparison word more, so check to make sure that the items being compared are similar. The comparison is between the verbs soliciting and to appeal, which are not in the same form, so this is a parallel construction error. Eliminate choice A and look for obvious repeaters. Because none of the other answer choices use the word soliciting, there are no obvious repeaters. Evaluate the remaining answer choices individually, looking for reasons to eliminate each.

Choice B fixes the original error by making the verbs being compared to solicit and to appeal, and introduces no new errors, so keep choice B. Choice C does not repeat the same comparison error, but still incorrectly compares private organizations to to appeal to state or federal agencies. Eliminate choice C. Choice D incorrectly compares the verbs going to with to appeal, which are not parallel, so eliminate choice D. Choice E incorrectly compares private organizations to to appeal to state or federal agencies. Eliminate choice E.

Choice A: No. The elements of the comparison, soliciting and to appeal, are not parallel. Comparison.

Choice B: Correct.

Choice C: No. Private organizations is incorrectly compared to to appeal to state of federal agencies. Comparison.

Choice D: No. The elements of the comparison, going to and to appeal, are not parallel. Comparison.

Choice E: No. Private organizations is incorrectly compared to to appeal to state of federal agencies. Comparison.

The correct answer is choice B.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

During the 1980s it became clear that soliciting private funds was far

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

During the 1980s it became clear that soliciting private funds was far

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia