Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
09 Sep 2022, 14:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
Whoa, this is one of the worst-written problems I've seen in quite a while. Some parts even have two 'layers' of poor writing, meaning that /1/ the writing is objectively inferior to anything that GMAC would put into a similar problem AND /2/ the inferior construction itself contains another error. 😅
One place where this happens is in the parallel structure you're asking about. There are straightforward ways of writing that part with two absolutely parallel structures—e.g., "clinical trials and eventual commercialization", with two parallel nouns—so that's how GMAC would write them.
Imperfect parallelism is used ONLY when it's just not possible to write perfect parallelism!
...and on top of that, "getting ___ED" is not acceptably formal English. This word should be "being", "becoming", or some other such word that is properly formal. (This is the 'second layer of issues' that I mentioned near the top.)
There are enough issues throughout this problem that I don't want to dip any deeper into it, but, I'll answer your questions here in another post shortly.
One place where this happens is in the parallel structure you're asking about. There are straightforward ways of writing that part with two absolutely parallel structures—e.g., "clinical trials and eventual commercialization", with two parallel nouns—so that's how GMAC would write them.
Imperfect parallelism is used ONLY when it's just not possible to write perfect parallelism!
...and on top of that, "getting ___ED" is not acceptably formal English. This word should be "being", "becoming", or some other such word that is properly formal. (This is the 'second layer of issues' that I mentioned near the top.)
There are enough issues throughout this problem that I don't want to dip any deeper into it, but, I'll answer your questions here in another post shortly.
09 Sep 2022, 15:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
gmatophobia
Sure—as long as there aren't any easily available ways to write the sentence with better parallelism.
The bigger issue here, though, is that there are at least 2 VERY general principles that should stop you from asking this question:
1/ The problems are multiple-choice!
You know this, of course—but you should take a moment here and there to think through the consequences more fully. One such consequence is that you will never need to know when you can write imperfectly parallel structures, because you can just COMPARE THEM TO THE OTHER CHOICES.
If another answer choice creates perfect parallelism (between the elements that actually should be parallel!), then eliminate the choice(s) with imperfect parallelism.
If no such thing happens in any other answer choice, then don't make those eliminations.
That's it.
and
2/ GMAT SC does not test insanely specific subtleties.
At some point, you should take a few moments to do two things:
——Look over a list of grammar topics that are actually tested in GMAT SC; notice that they're all major, fundamental aspects of written English that you'll find on almost every single page of any suitably formal text.
——Just think for a sec about how crazy it would be for something THIS specific to actually impact people's business-school admissions! No respectable school would accept a test that differentiated between test takers on the basis of such trifles.
The explicit answer to your question is yes, by the way. The most common setup for this type of parallelism is the creation of nouns from 2 different verbs.
...because...
• SOME verbs have dedicated noun forms that are NOT just _ing constructions working an extra shift.
e.g., destruction (from "to destroy"); approval (from "to approve"); addition (from "to add")
...but...
• Other verbs do not have such noun forms—requiring you to just use the _ing form instead.
e.g., pouring (as in "the pouring of concrete"; there's no word like pouration, pourage, or anything else like that)
So, you could have a sentence about, say, "the pouring of concrete and the subsequent addition of chemicals to make it solidify quickly".
It's impossible to make those two words any more perfectly parallel. You don't need to determine that, though—you would just glance through the other answer choices and notice that the parallelism is either identical or worse in all four.
09 Sep 2022, 19:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
gmatophobia , RonTargetTestPrep has covered everything. Please read all his points. I can't add much.
About what the Manhattan SC book said:
Confession: I've been guilty of making confident 'this is not allowed in the GMAT' statements. And then later I come across an official question that breaks the 'rule' 🙁. Sometimes an answer choice that breaks a not-so-rigid rule is the best answer (because the others are worse).
This article has a good explanation of parallelism and why it is important: https://uwaterloo.ca/writing-and-commun ... arallelism Parallelism is basically a tool to make the sentence easier to read and understood.
In this question, (D) is undoubtedly the best answer, even if it does not result in a well-written sentence.
The word GET is considered informal and does not appear much in professional writing. Instead of 'chances of eventually getting commercialised', it would be better to say 'chances of eventual commercialisation'.
Posted from my mobile device
Quote:
Short answer is that it can; it's not ideal, it's not preferred, but it's not absolutely wrong, especially when "there aren't any easily available ways to write the sentence with better parallelism" (Ron's words).
About what the Manhattan SC book said:
Quote:
This is certainly a good general principle. But the last sentence is too dogmatic. It would be better to say "avoid mixing these categories" (unless unavoidable).
Confession: I've been guilty of making confident 'this is not allowed in the GMAT' statements. And then later I come across an official question that breaks the 'rule' 🙁. Sometimes an answer choice that breaks a not-so-rigid rule is the best answer (because the others are worse).
This article has a good explanation of parallelism and why it is important: https://uwaterloo.ca/writing-and-commun ... arallelism Parallelism is basically a tool to make the sentence easier to read and understood.
In this question, (D) is undoubtedly the best answer, even if it does not result in a well-written sentence.
The word GET is considered informal and does not appear much in professional writing. Instead of 'chances of eventually getting commercialised', it would be better to say 'chances of eventual commercialisation'.
Posted from my mobile device
