Despite its attractiveness, investing abroad can still pose big risks

Despite its attractiveness, investing abroad can still pose big risks, ranging from the potential for political instability in some countries to the shortage of regulations to protect investors and a serious lack of information about investments in others.

we need "in others" in the latter clause as the former uses "in some countries" - using this theory we can drop B & E

C makes idiom blunder and does not use from x to y format - so even c is out

now left with A & D

(A) to the shortage of regulations to protect investors and a serious lack of information about investments in others


(D) and the shortage of regulations to protect investors to a serious lack of information about investments in others

abhimahna :I have a question: why can't we bundle in below manner the option D

Despite its attractiveness, investing abroad can still pose big risks,
ranging
from <the potential for political instability in some countries and the shortage of regulations to protect investors >
to <a serious lack of information about investments in others.>

Hi Leo8 ,

The original sentence conveys Range from X to Y and Z.

But you are saying Range from X and Y to Z.

Did you notice the change in meaning?

We are not allowed to change the original meaning unless we don't have the right answer.

Hi IanStewart,
Why option B is wrong although it follows the same construction but the placement of in others is different.
Could you please explain why option B is wrong.

Correct construction: from X to Y.

Incorrect construction: from X and Y. So C and D are out.

Misplaced Modifier = "in others" = in other countries

B. "in others" modifies ONLY "a serious lack of information..". That is NOT sufficient since "in others" is supposed to modify both "the shortage..." and "a serious lack of information..."

E. "in others" modifies ONLY "the shortage...". That is incorrect because "in others" should ALSO modify "a serious lack of information..."

A. avoids misplaced modifier issue in B and E.

So, IMO A is correct answer.

Correct me if I was wrong. Thanks and + kudos


Sent from my SM-T116NU using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Hopefully the replies above addressed your question, but in B, the "in others" is in the wrong place. B says that only the "lack of information" problem happens "in other" countries, and it's not clear what the middle part of the sentence is doing there (where is the "shortage of regulations" problem happening)? The "in others" needs to go with both items in the list at the end of the sentence.

Option A-PErfect
Option B-Parallelism issue- Preposition IN after and is not going with previous clause.
Option C-Idiom Error..Idiom is from A to B
Option D-Idiom Error..Idiom is from A to B
Option E-wrong placement of in others it should be at the end.

Hello gmatify17,

You have done a very good analysis of this official sentence. Keep up the good work.

I would just like to present my approach for Choice B.

In this choice, I do not see any parallelism issue as such. Choice B is incorrect because per this choice, only a serious lack of information about investments associates with in others. This is not the intended meaning of the original sentence.

The original sentence intends to convey that risks can range from A in some countries to B and C in others. Both the risks - B and C - can be present in others. However, per Choice. only risk C can be present in other other countries.

The change in intended meaning makes Choice B incorrect.


Thanks.
Shraddha

hi - I am not sure why E is incorrect. Can I get some clarity on this please?

Simplifying that a bit, we get, "Investing abroad can pose risks, ranging from (X) in some countries to (Y) in others and a lack of information..."

The big problem here is that the very last bit of the sentence ("and a lack of information...") is just dangling there, and it's really tough to understand what it's doing. Because the phrase begins with "and", it needs to be parallel to something, and I can't quite figure out what it's parallel to.

Put another way: the intent of the sentence is clearly to say that there are big risks to investing abroad, and that the risks range "from (X) in some countries to (Y and Z) in others..." In (E), it's not clear that "a lack of information about investments" is among the risks in "other countries", just because the phrase "in others" is misplaced.

Notice that (A) solves that problem nicely:


Now, it's clear that the risks range from "political instability" in some countries to "the shortage of regulations... and a lack of information..." in others. The improved placement of "in others" clarifies the sentence enormously.

I hope this helps a bit!

To protect a lack of information in others... how exactly is that logical?

Posted from my mobile device

Yeah..I guess it can be interpreted in that manner..

Another way to interpret would be:

shortage of lack of information

Despite its attractiveness, investing abroad can still pose big risks, ranging from the potential for political instability in some countries to the shortage of regulations to protect investors and a serious lack of information about investments in others.

Meaning: Investing abroad is a rewarding form of investing BUT it comes at its own risks. These risks include 1) political instability 2) lack of regulations to protect investors 3) lack of information about investing abroad

Despite its attractiveness, (Prepositional phrase modifying the noun "investing abroad")
investing abroad (Subject)
can still pose big risks (Verb - pose)
, ranging (This indicates the beginning of a present participle phrase modifying the "risk"
from the potential for political instability (From X... to Y is the idiom used) ("the potential..." element 1 of parallel list)
in some countries (prepositional phrase modifying "political instability")
to the shortage of regulations to protect investors ("the shortage..." element 2.a of parallel list)("to protect..." is an infinitive modifying "regulations")
and a serious lack of information about investments. ("a serious lack..." element 2.b of parallel list)("and" is a conjunction/connector joining 2.a with 2.b)
in others (prepositional phrase modifying "shortage of regulation" and "investments")


"from the potential... in some countries to the shortage... and a serious lack of information about investments in others." So we have the construction From X to Y : X - The shortage of regulation ; Y - the shortage... and a serious lack... We see that Y has two element Y1 (the shortage...) and Y2 (a serious lack) So we can elaborate and say that we have From X to [Y1 and Y2] This is absolutely correct.

Notice, "to protect" is not a part of the from X to Y construct. This infinitive phrase is just used to modify "regulations" How can we conclude this? Well the way the sentence is written, it dictates a meaning that there is a shortage of regulations. What regulations? the ones used to protect investors.

Also, its worth noting the modifier (in some countries) for X and (in others) for [Y1 and Y2]. Yes, we generally do not look at the modifiers and tenses used while deciding parallelism, but in this case it helps to notice that (in some countries) and (in others) are essentially the same modifier that is used for the two parallel elements.


In (A) we just discussed the modifiers used for the two elements of From X to Y. In this sentence we have "in others" placed after "and" thus this modifier ONLY modifies "a serious lack of information". Keeping this in mind we now have From X (in some countries) To Y and Z (in others). But we wish to say that "the shortage.. and a serious lack" BOTH are an issue on other countries. So we need the modifier to modify "the shortage" as well.

Also, for parallelism It is much better to have from X (in some..) to Y (in others..) than to have from X (in some..) to (in others) Y


This one should be easy to eliminate. At a first glance, we can notice that the construct "From X to Y" is missing a "to". Instead, we have "and". From X and Y is a deterministic error.

It's interesting to see how a single tweak of one word "to; --> and" the entire option is incorrect. Apart from this small tweak, there is noting that's different from option (A)


"from the potential... in some countries and the shortage of regulations... to a serious lack... about investments in others" So we have From [X1 and X2] to Y: X1 - The potential... X2 - the shortage ; Y - a serious lack. This is acceptable BUT again, notice that X2 does not have the modifier "in other countries" and based on the meaning of the sentence we need to show that this problem i.e. "shortage of regulations" exists in countries. The fact that "and" is placed before it does not allow the modifier of X1 (the potential) to modify X2 (the shortage). Moreover, since X2 is not a part of Y (a serious lack), the modifier of Y cannot modify X2.

Clearly, we see how modifier can help us determine certain constructs in a sentence. Had it been "From the potential and the shortage in some countries to a serious lack of information... in others" This choice, in my opinion, would have been correct.


We again see the modifier error like the one used in (B). In this case, we do not have the modifier for Y2 (a serious lack...) since "in others" is placed before "and"

It's worth noting that in (A) we have "in others" placed at the end of the sentence i.e. Y1 and Y2 in others while here we have Y1 in others and Y2. The latter is clearly incorrect.

Correct choice: (A)

GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo could you throw some light on the modifiers used. Generally we don't look at the modifiers while deciding the parallel elements, but in this sentence the modifiers play an important role while deciding the correct sentence structure

Hi Hoozan
I am still not very clear about explanation provided for option D after going though your explanation as well as the whole thread


Why do we need 'in other countries' after X2 as well? It makes sense to me without that as well.I am still struck between choice A and D
Hoozan GMATNinja VeritasKarishma AndrewN egmat

Hello, Poojita. I see a major difference between (A) and (D) that spells trouble for the latter, and the point has been touched on earlier in the thread by IanStewart:



Consider the shortlisted answer choices side by side:

Now, you may point out that both sentences preserve a from... to construction. The problem with the second iteration, though, is that the first part, about some countries, seems to resolve just prior to the underlined portion, as in,

ranging from X in some countries to Y in others [other countries]

But, looking at (D), what are we to make of the extra bit that begins the underlined portion? It seems to be added on belatedly and sort of ends up in no-man's-land, between the two entities that are being compared.

ranging from X in some countries and [something] to Y in others

To be sure, you could have a sentence in which X and Y occurred within the same country without repeating the word country (or some variant), but if the state of affairs from one place is to be compared with that from another, and the sentence adopts this ranging from construct, then we need to see a reminder of what the range applies to, country to country, or the comparison will seem to be applicable to the earlier country only (a comment on internal matters).

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

In Option A, which is the correct answer, the construction appears as follows:

From X to Y & Z

However, shouldn't Y & Z be parallel, since ''and'' is a parallelism trigger?

I find that ''to protect'' in Y is a verb, but Z doesn't have any verb . Then how they could be parallel?

Please guide.

Also, I am summarizing from below question that'' From X to Y'' is always a correct construction with no exception to this rule. Also, ''From X and Y to Z'' is always incorrect. However, ''From X to Y and Z'' could also be correct version like in this option A. Please let me know if this would be a good takeaway for this question.

Regards
Vighnesh

SC Cardinal Rule #1: Do not invent rules!

First, you're right that "and" is a parallel trigger. Take another look at the relevant portion of the sentence:


Here, the noun phrases in red are parallel. This seems fine -- both elements are types of risk.

And there's no rule forbidding the use of "and" within a "from X to Y" phrase. For instance:

"Tim eats all sorts of food, from durian and mangoes to caterpillars and horse steaks."

As long as the elements connected by "and" function the same way, this is totally fine.

So there's nothing inherently wrong with "from X... to Y and Z," but the point isn't to memorize that this is a valid construction. The point is to notice the "and" trigger, evaluate the parallelism, and then move on to other issues.

I hope that clears things up!

Ok, I got that noun phrases are parallel. But what about ''to protect investors''? There is a verb ''protect'', don't we need another verb to make it parallel. I am confused as sometimes we say verb phrases are parallel and at other times, noun phrases are parallel. So, how to decide whether it is a noun or verb phrase. What needs to be made parallel? Hope you got my query.