In the 1990s, Australian vineyards, innovators in marketing

Question

Source: Ready4GMAT

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

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

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.

Option C - Correct answer

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   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.

Mo2men · Answer

Dear Crackverbal,

I do not get the issue of parallelism. Why do they are wrong? more importantly, how to make them parallel?

Thanks in advance

adityapareshshah · Answer

@CrackVerbalGMAT- Please explain how parallelism came into picture.

chetan2u · Answer

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...

Bunuel · Answer

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.

The correct answer is (C).

In the 1990s, Australian vineyards, innovators in marketing

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

In the 1990s, Australian vineyards, innovators in marketing

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards