Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 14:22 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 14:22
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
505-555 Level|   Parallelism|   Verb Tense/Form|                                 
User avatar
felipet190
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jun 2020
Last visit: 18 Aug 2021
Posts: 7
Own Kudos:
1
Posts: 7
Kudos: 1
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in 04 Aug 2020, 20:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
singh_amit19
The Official Guide for GMAT Review 2017 Practice Question Question No.: SC 766 Page: 702

Again, we need parallel construction. We have "not just because of x, but because doctors did y." Those are not parallel. For proper parallel construction, we'd need, "not just because of x, but because of y," or "not just because doctors did x, but because doctors did y."
Show more

Hi Sempai GMATNinja
I have a question - it seems like you're quoting the GMAT Official Guide 2020 with your explanation here, but I believe this to be a typo. You say that the proper construction is "not just because of x, but because of y," However, the correct answer has the following form: "not just because of x, but also because of y,"
Doesn't the proper idiomatic expression require the use of the word "also" here? Thank you!
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,787
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,787
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in 02 Sep 2020, 12:46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
felipet190
GMATNinja
singh_amit19
The Official Guide for GMAT Review 2017 Practice Question Question No.: SC 766 Page: 702

Again, we need parallel construction. We have "not just because of x, but because doctors did y." Those are not parallel. For proper parallel construction, we'd need, "not just because of x, but because of y," or "not just because doctors did x, but because doctors did y."

Hi Sempai GMATNinja
I have a question - it seems like you're quoting the GMAT Official Guide 2020 with your explanation here, but I believe this to be a typo. You say that the proper construction is "not just because of x, but because of y," However, the correct answer has the following form: "not just because of x, but also because of y,"
Doesn't the proper idiomatic expression require the use of the word "also" here? Thank you!
Show more
Is it that hard to believe that two separate sources would choose "x" and "y" as variables? :D :D :D The OG explanations aren't produced by the same people who write GMAT questions, and for the most part, I don't bother reading them at all.

And, no, the word "also" is not strictly required. Here's an example from GMAT Prep.
User avatar
kashishDhir
User avatar
Joined: 06 Feb 2021
Last visit: 24 Oct 2025
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 38
Location: India
Schools: IIMA '25 (A)
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
Schools: IIMA '25 (A)
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
Posts: 35
Kudos: 9
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in 20 Jun 2021, 22:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
[quote="singh_amit19"]
The Official Guide for GMAT Review 2017

Practice Question
Question No.: SC 766
Page: 702
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

(A) a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing

(B) a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing

(C) a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written

(D) which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing

(E) which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written

[spoiler=]https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/08/us/spending-on-prescription-drugs-increases-by-almost-19-percent.html

In Option D, If we write- which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but also because doctors are writing
Will that choice would be correct? Also, Can anyone share their opinion if the use of "which" is correct in the above choice?
Here, which can modify "half the increase in spending on prescription drugs". Is it correct?
User avatar
ashutosh_73
User avatar
Joined: 19 Jan 2018
Last visit: 30 Oct 2024
Posts: 234
Own Kudos:
1,637
Given Kudos: 86
Location: India
Posts: 234
Kudos: 1,637
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in 09 Aug 2023, 21:15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
singh_amit19
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

(A) a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing

(B) a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing

(C) a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written

(D) which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing

(E) which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written

Show Spoiler
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/08/us/spending-on-prescription-drugs-increases-by-almost-19-percent.html

As an aging population coped with arthritis, diabetes and high cholesterol, spending on prescription drugs shot up 18.8 percent last year, to $131.9 billion, a new study shows.

Two dozen products accounted for half the increase, which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but because doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs, the study said. The study was issued today by the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that conducts research on health care issues.
Show more


Hi AjiteshArun KarishmaB GMATNinja

Although i got this correct, i still have a doubt:

The N + N-modifier, which is in present progressive form, modifies the whole clause, but the event it modifies has happened in past.
Use of simple present(yellow) i follow, but use of present progressive(green) i don't.
Can present progressive tense be used to denote events started in past events but still ongoing? Isn't Present Perfect Progressive more appropriate here?

Correct OG sentence: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, ''a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing'' many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

Thanks
Ashutosh
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
77,000
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 77,000
 [2]
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in 09 Aug 2023, 23:48
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
ashutosh_73
singh_amit19
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

(A) a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing

(B) a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing

(C) a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written

(D) which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing

(E) which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written

Show Spoiler
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/08/us/spending-on-prescription-drugs-increases-by-almost-19-percent.html

As an aging population coped with arthritis, diabetes and high cholesterol, spending on prescription drugs shot up 18.8 percent last year, to $131.9 billion, a new study shows.

Two dozen products accounted for half the increase, which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but because doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs, the study said. The study was issued today by the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that conducts research on health care issues.


Hi AjiteshArun KarishmaB GMATNinja

Although i got this correct, i still have a doubt:

The N + N-modifier, which is in present progressive form, modifies the whole clause, but the event it modifies has happened in past.
Use of simple present(yellow) i follow, but use of present progressive(green) i don't.
Can present progressive tense be used to denote events started in past events but still ongoing? Isn't Present Perfect Progressive more appropriate here?

Correct OG sentence: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, ''a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing'' many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

Thanks
Ashutosh
Show more

The action of drugs becoming more expensive is an ongoing one. They were getting more expensive in 2000 and are getting more expensive today too.
The impact that this action had on the figures of year 2000 is this - a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs
This year also it will have some impact but that is beyond our scope.

Take another example:

Last year, most countries faced an extremely severe summer, a phenomenon explained by the fact that the Earth is getting warmer because of greenhouse gases.

The fact is that the Earth is getting warmer. We are discussing its impact on last year's summer.
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts