Economist George Akerlof has argued that procrastination reveals the l

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION



THE PROMPT

This question tests parallelism, the idiom involved in such as vs. like, and an alternative way to phrase "[examples] such as X and Y."

I don't think you should spend a lot of time memorizing idioms.
I would memorize this one.

• Parallelism
→ in a list of items, the items must be similar parts of speech

-- overeating is a gerund (the noun kind of verbING)
-- the infinitive to save is a noun here, sometimes called a noun infinitive.
-- the purchasing of also involves a gerund, though it is phrased differently.
See Notes about the complex/simple gerund issue, which we will ignore for now.

→ well, those three things all function as nouns, but overeating and to save are not the same form of noun.

• IDIOM - such as is used two ways to introduce examples (and lately, the second way is more common than the first).
When we introduce examples we can say either
I crave rich sweets such as chocolate cake and eclairs.
OR
I crave such rich sweets as chocolate cake and eclairs.
See Notes, below.

• like rather than such as to introduce examples?
The answer used to be a solid no, but now, I would avoid eliminating an answer on that basis alone.
If all else is roughly equal, choose such as rather than like to introduce examples. See Notes.

THE OPTIONS

• overeating [a noun/gerund (verbING)] and to save (an infinitive acting as a noun) are not parallel nouns.

• Do we need "such"? No. Because of the phrase as diverse as, the sentence is okay without the word such.
→ With parallelism corrected, this sentence is fine. Implied words are in brackets: Procrastination can teach useful lessons about phenomena [THAT ARE] as diverse as overeating, saving money, and purchasing automobiles.

→ By contrast, GMAC may test the introduction of examples in ways that require the word such. One option might incorrectly use only as, this way:

I always allow myself a few bites of rich sweets as chocolate cake and eclairs.

ELIMINATE A (parallelism)

• overeating, to save, and to purchase are not parallel (fatal) [___ING, infinitive, infinitive]
• like option A, because of the phrase as diverse as, we do not need a such
ELIMINATE B

• As a general rule, like should not be used to introduce examples.
→ A general rule is not a strict mandate.
-- Look for an additional error in the sentence.
-- Many of you have been taught that like may never be used to introduce examples.
That approach is too strong. I would not eliminate this option on that basis alone. See Notes.

• We might have some problems with parallelism, but this issue is not crystal clear, either.
overeating, the saving of, and the purchasing of are probably not parallel because the first term lacks the and a prepositional phrase
→ they're all nouns, and they're all ___ING words.
→ the three are not phrased identically.
Please take this advice to heart: do not waste your time deciding whether these three are parallel before you look at other options in which you might not have to decide the issue.
Be cautious. Keep the option, be on the lookout for a better option, and move on.
KEEP C


• to overeat and to save are parallel, but the purchase of is not. To purchase would be parallel.

• including, whether preceded by a comma or not, is a very common way to introduce examples. See Notes
ELIMINATE D


• overeating, saving, and purchasing are 100% parallel, a fact that means we immediately trash our tentatively reserved option C
• the idiom such [NOUNS] as X, Y, and Z is correct
• both versions of such as still seem to be preferred to like on the GMAT, but be careful. See Notes.

The answer is E.

Notes

Complex vs. simple gerunds [verbINGs]

I review official questions often but cannot recall an instance that tests only this distinction. I'll look again.

MGMAT's 6th edition of "Sentence Correction" discusses the difference. I'm not sure whether the newer set does.
In option A, the last item is a gerund, although it is preceded by an article and followed by a phrase. It has a slightly different "feel" to it than the first gerund does.

If I recall correctly, though, GMAC includes another error in such questions (e.g. overeating and to save are not parallel).

Including
→ ___ING words can modify nouns!
-- Before the noun: the enchanting story
-- After the noun: I watched him walking slowly down the dark path.
-- After a noun + comma: I crave rich sweets, including chocolate cake and eclairs.
-- Including in (D) modifies phenomena. The phrase means "phenomena that include X, Y, and Z."
-- See GMATNinja in this post, here and in this article, here, especially #4.

For some of you, this way will be easier to remember: including does not follow the "regular" rules you learned about verbING words. Remember these things:
(1) including is an exception to what you learned about verbING (with or without a comma);
(2) including means "for example"; and
(3) including modifies nouns or noun phrase.
(I agree with GMATNinja's analysis.Including seen in that context is not an exception. Use whichever analysis helps you remember.)

Introducing examples: such as vs. like

GMAC seems to have relaxed its previously strict rule that like could not introduce examples, although it still strongly prefers such as.

On the other hand, the linguistic terrain is changing, and GMAC seems to have signaled that it may accept like.

When? No one knows, but I would not be surprised to see a correct official answer using like within the next few years.

Be ready for that possibility. I would avoid using only the like/such as split to eliminate answers immediately.

With regard to linguistic terrain that is changing, GMAC's position may seem to be unchanged, but GMAC also seems to have sent subtle signs that it may be changing its position on like as an introduction to examples.

About 99 percent of non-underlined portions in official SC questions use such as to introduce examples.

I know of two official questions in which like is used to introduce examples in the non-underlined portion of the sentence.
One of those official questions is here.
A couple of other similar questions may exist.

As far as I can discern from research, not a single correct answer has ever included the word like to introduce examples.

That said, I think most of us expect GMAC to throw a question at you in the near future in which the correct answer uses like to introduce examples.

Why do I expect GMAC to throw such a question at you in the near future?

(1) Major publications such as the New York Times have adopted the use of like to introduce examples. Many publications now follow what some believe is standard spoken English.

(2) As I noted, GMAC itself has used like to introduce examples in non-underlined portions of its sentences.

(3) In questions that test the such as vs. like issue, options that include like are incorrect and usually noted as such—but in the last five years or so, those options have also contained another error.

(4) When GMAC "shifts gears," it may do so suddenly. GMAC may force the aspirant's hand by writing four options that contain clear error and by offering a fifth whose only error is a "rule" that GMAC has signaled might be changing.

→ an example with a similar trajectory is the alleged rule about pronouns and "possessive poison," which is not an ironclad rule and may never have been.[/b] See the footnote.*

The backdrop of the contest between like and such as to introduce examples seems similar to the backdrop that accompanied the "possessive poison" rule.
Possessive antecedents for subject and object pronouns are occasionally allowed but not preferred.*

I suspect that the word like to introduce examples may soon be part of an officially correct answer and thus at least occasionally allowed (not preferred).

At this point, I would not exclude an option if my only objection were that it used like rather than such as to introduce examples.

Be suspicious of like when it is introducing examples, and try to find another error in that option.

BLIPS

We have a few blips that I keep mentioning but that keep showing up.

→ A label is not an explanation.
Use a few short words to explain what you mean.

-- Let's say that we are reviewing this sentence:
I worried about him going near what seemed to be a live electric wire.

-- Suppose that I were to write nothing except possessive gerund needed.

Only few aspirants would fully understand the error I flagged.

Why, then, would I write nothing more than "possessive gerund needed"? Answer: I wouldn't.

Along those lines, aspirants who have no idea why two nouns aren't parallel are not edified by the label "parallelism."

Original meaning
There is nothing special about option A.
If you eliminate an option because you think it changes the meaning of option A, before you do so again, find an official sentence in which "changed the meaning of A" is a reason to eliminate an option that is stated in the OG. (And please post it.)

Okay, those two are the most common blips.
All of these answers have some very good content.
A few have content that could be improved.

COMMENTS

kushjhamar , welcome to SC Butler.

Ranasaymon , thank you for chiming in. I like dialogue.
At HLS, professors taught using the Socratic method. (Google it.)

Okay, the good teachers did so. (The bad ones have probably just been appointed to the federal bench by . . . don't get me started.)

A few surprises hit me while I learned by participating in and listening to dialogue.
The best surprise was this one: it is better to reason well than to obsess about "the correct way" to arrive at an answer.

Strive for excellence in your own work instead of trying to establish the superiority of your work over others'.
(I really despise one-upmanship, tribalism, and peddlers of righter-than-thou.)

These times are hard: I am proud of all of you who continue to work.
Sometimes you will only be able to work for a few minutes.
That's okay.

The whole world has reeled before; resilient human beings righted it and will do so again.

These answers range from satisfactory to very good. Smiley faces go to those who answered; kudos go to those who answered and explained.


* The trajectory of the "possessive poison" rule on the GMAT seems helpful in assessing whether GMAC will soon accept like as an occasional way to introduce examples.

SPOILER ALERT: An official question is identified.
The 2016 OG contained a question that utterly ignored what is referred to as "the possessive poison rule."
(It was never an ironclad rule. Just a preference.) Most people were surprised. A couple of people thought that the question was a fluke. (It is not.) Many aspirants were frustrated.

I researched. Why would GMAC spring what seemed to be a big surprise?
Answer: GMAC did not spring a big surprise. GMAC had been hinting all along.

GMAC does not frequently allow a subject pronoun such as she to have a possessive antecedent such as her,
but GMAC sometimes does allow both subject and object pronouns to have possessive antecedents—and GMAC has been doing so since at least 2005.

I wrote a post about the possessive poison rule's partial "demise."

My post is attached to an MGMAT question that is similar to the OG 2016 question.
That OG 2016 question is

Show Spoiler

about Elizabeth Barrett Browning and can be found here.

My post about the trajectory of possessive poison is here.