Last visit was: 12 Jul 2024, 19:50 It is currently 12 Jul 2024, 19:50
Toolkit
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

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.

# In the 1990s, Australian vineyards, innovators in marketing

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Current Student
Joined: 15 Mar 2014
Posts: 169
Own Kudos [?]: 164 [5]
Given Kudos: 12
Location: United Kingdom
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 4
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Posts: 4918
Own Kudos [?]: 7797 [2]
Given Kudos: 220
Location: India
SVP
Joined: 26 Mar 2013
Posts: 2456
Own Kudos [?]: 1369 [0]
Given Kudos: 641
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Schools: Erasmus (II)
Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2016
Posts: 66
Own Kudos [?]: 40 [0]
Given Kudos: 254
Re: In the 1990s, Australian vineyards, innovators in marketing [#permalink]
CrackVerbalGMAT wrote:
let us take a look at the answer options --

Option A - Incorrect

"both accessible to the palate and psychology" -- not parallel.

Option B - Incorrect

"both to the palate and psychology of young wine drinkers" -- not parallel.
Note that "both X and Y" must have perfect parallelism between X and Y.

This avoids the parallelism issue in both options A and B by removing "both".

Option D - Incorrect

"innovators in marketing and in product development, Australian vineyards, which stormed the market with wines accessible" -- not a sentence.

Moreover, the focus of the sentence should be on "Australian vineyards"; "innovators in marketing and product development" is just an additional description for "Australian vineyards". This option reverses the priority.
Because of this the meaning of the sentence also changes. The sentence implies that -- "Innovators in marketing and product development [=they] did so without sacrificing the country's reputation to create vintages of high quality." This talks about all such innovators, not just Australian vineyards.

Option E - Incorrect

"both to the palate and psychology" -- not parallel.
This option, like option D, talks about all such innovators.

@CrackVerbalGMAT- Please explain how parallelism came into picture.
RC & DI Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Status:Math and DI Expert
Posts: 11468
Own Kudos [?]: 34263 [0]
Given Kudos: 322
Re: In the 1990s, Australian vineyards, innovators in marketing [#permalink]
ashwink wrote:

In the 1990s, Australian vineyards, innovators in marketing and in product development, stormed the market with wines both accessible to the palate and psychology of young wine drinkers, and they did so without sacrificing the country's reputation to create vintages of high quality.

A) Australian vineyards, innovators in marketing and in product development, stormed the market with wines both accessible
B) Australian vineyards, innovators in marketing and in product development, stormed the market with wines that were accessible both
C) Australian vineyards, innovators in marketing and in product development, stormed the market with wines accessible
D) innovators in marketing and in product development, Australian vineyards, which stormed the market with wines accessible
E) innovators in marketing and in product development such as Australian vineyards stormed the market with wines accessible both

Hi,

There are two issues being tested....
1) Modifier :- Here two modifiers - "In the 1990s" and "innovators in marketing..."- are modifying "Australian vineyards"...
So both these should be close to Australian vineyards...
The last two choices have Back to Back modifier, which are not preferred and give a straight meaning without it.
So Only A,B and C are left.
2) Idiom : Both X and Y - here both X and Y are supposed to be similar or parallel...
In A, accessible to the palate and psychology of young wine are not similar or parallel..
Moreover PALATE and PSYCHOLOGY are describing same word " young wine...", So BOTH is not even required..
Only C is left...
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 94302
Own Kudos [?]: 640186 [0]
Given Kudos: 84576
Re: In the 1990s, Australian vineyards, innovators in marketing [#permalink]
ashwink wrote:

In the 1990s, Australian vineyards, innovators in marketing and in product development, stormed the market with wines both accessible to the palate and psychology of young wine drinkers, and they did so without sacrificing the country's reputation to create vintages of high quality.

A) Australian vineyards, innovators in marketing and in product development, stormed the market with wines both accessible
B) Australian vineyards, innovators in marketing and in product development, stormed the market with wines that were accessible both
C) Australian vineyards, innovators in marketing and in product development, stormed the market with wines accessible
D) innovators in marketing and in product development, Australian vineyards, which stormed the market with wines accessible
E) innovators in marketing and in product development such as Australian vineyards stormed the market with wines accessible both

Official Explanation

Creating a filter: In the original sentence, the word "both" is misplaced. The intended meaning is "both palate and psychology," not "both accessible and something else," so the word "both" must come after "accessible."

Applying the filter: We review the choices and find that our filter knocks out only answer choice (A). We'll have to find new points of comparison among the other choices.

Finding objective defects: we compare (B) and (C) and find them similar. In answer choice (B), could there be an objective defect in including "both?" Indeed, there is: "both... and..." is a two-part construction that must have parallel elements, but it fails to have parallel construction in (B), because "psychology" is missing the words "to the" in the remainder of the sentence, after the underlined portion. So (B) is out. In (C), meanwhile, if you discard the word "both," there is no two-part construction and the sentence is valid. So (C) looks good. Answer choice (D) actually leads to the whole thing not being a grammatical sentence with subject and predicate; "which stormed" begins one dependent clause, and "and they" later begins what is another dependent clause, since it starts with the conjunction "and," so there is no independent clause. So (D) is out. Choice (E) changes the intended meaning of the sentence by making the vineyards examples, not the point of the sentence. So (E) is out. We are down to one answer choice.