HOT Competition 27 Aug/8AM: The Income Tax Office of investigations an

A. to investigate not only whether research is an independent aspect at brokerage companies, but also whether disputes result when analysts own the stocks they write about or when they are.......correct as is

B. to investigate not only whether research is an independent aspect at brokerage companies, but also if disputes result when analysts own the stocks they write about or they are

D. not only to investigate whether or not research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or are............to is not parallel to whether

C. to not only investigate whether or not research is an independent aspect at brokerage companies, but also if disputes result when analysts own the stocks they write about or are.............parallelism issue again.

E. not only to investigate whether research is an independent function at brokerage firms, or whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or when...............but also is missing

OA is A.

The Income Tax Office of investigations and inspections plans to sharpen its examination of stock analysts to investigate not only whether research is an independent aspect at brokerage companies, but also whether disputes result when analysts own the stocks they write about or when they are paid for their work by a company’s investment department.


A. to investigate not only whether research is an independent aspect at brokerage companies, but also whether disputes result when analysts own the stocks they write about or when they are

B. to investigate not only whether research is an independent aspect at brokerage companies, but also if disputes result when analysts own the stocks they write about or they are

C. to not only investigate whether or not research is an independent aspect at brokerage companies, but also if disputes result when analysts own the stocks they write about or are

D. not only to investigate whether or not research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or are

E. not only to investigate whether research is an independent function at brokerage firms, or whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or when

My POE is as follows:
Option A seems fine to me as, with no grammatical mistakes, parallelism markers are placed correctly. The list is aptly worded - So I keep A as a contender
Option B list is not parallel . not only x but also Y, where X and Y should have a similar grammatical structure. But in this option, not only whether... but also if .... So option B is not correct as it as parellelism error.
Option C has whether or not. Usage of whether or not is redundant so eliminate C and Option D for the same reasons
Option E uses only not only parallelism marker, whereas it should always be used with but also idiomatically. So this sentence is also wrong.

So Option A is the best possible choice

What we are tested on here is the correct usage of the idiom “not only X, but also Y” in which X and Y must be parallel.

A. to investigate not only whether research is an independent aspect at brokerage companies, but also whether disputes result when analysts own the stocks they write about or when they are

This one has a correct parallelism with two similar noun clauses: to investigate not only X, but also Y
X = whether research is an independent aspect at brokerage companies
Y = whether disputes result when analysts own the stocks they write about

There are other two parallel elements that make choice A superior: disputes results when X or when Y
X = when analysts own the stocks they write about
Y = when they are paid for their work…


B. to investigate not only whether research is an independent aspect at brokerage companies, but also if disputes result when analysts own the stocks they write about or they are

1. we can see that “whether clause” and “if clause” are not as parallel as choice A’s similar elements are. The reason is that “whether clause” is a noun clause that is the object of the verb “investigate”, as in “investigate something”. However, “if clause” is not a noun clause, but a conditional marker, so it cannot be the object of the verb “investigate”.
2. in simple words, we cannot write “to investigate if disputes result” as to investigate something. So such usage is wrong.
3. because the second “when” misses after “or”, this sentence is not as easily readable as choice A. We will have to reread it several times before we get the core meaning.


C. to not only investigate whether or not research is an independent aspect at brokerage companies, but also if disputes result when analysts own the stocks they write about or are paid for their work by a company’s investment department

1. not only investigate, but also if disputes = not only verb, but also conditional clause. We can see that these two are not parallel.
2. “or are paid” makes the sentence further unreadable because a reader may relate “are” to another plural noun “disputes”. Since “or” is parallel marker, it can grammatically make “are” to “result”. This is not the intended meaning though.


D. not only to investigate whether or not research is an independent function at brokerage firms, but also whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or are

1. not only infinitive, but also noun clause – is not parallel at all.
2. “whether or not” – is a redundant construction in this choice because “not” can be omitted but easily discerned by the reader.
3. “or are paid” makes the sentence further unreadable because a reader may relate “are” to another plural noun “disputes”. Since “or” is parallel marker, it can grammatically make “are” to “result”. This is not the intended meaning though.


E. not only to investigate whether research is an independent function at brokerage firms, or whether conflicts result when analysts own the stocks they write about or when

1. we have the first halve of the idiom but the other half is missing.
2. “when paid for their work” part misses a verb and thus is a fragment.


Hence A

Posted from my mobile device

This question tests the parallelism.

Meaning

The Income Tax Office of investigations and inspections (Subject) plans (Verb) to sharpen its examination of stock analysts to investigate whether research is an independent aspect at brokerage companies and whether disputes result when analysts own the stocks they write about or when they are paid for their work by a company’s investment department.

Analysis of the answer choices.

The parallel seems OK. Keep it.


This choice compares whether to if. It makes no sense. Out.


"whether or not" compares to "if". It makes no sense. Out.


- "whether or not" compares to "whether".
- the parallelism of "or" is incorrect. conflicts result or are. It makes no sense. Out.


The subject-verb agreement of the last sentence is wrong. There is no verb after "When". Out.

So I choose A.

Posted from my mobile device

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.