Skywalker18
Located at the very coal mines that provided them with fuel,
the use of steam engines in eighteenth-century England increased coal production by allowing for mines to be drained of water and permitting extraction of deeper layers of coal.
(A) the use of steam engines in eighteenth-century England increased coal production by allowing for mines to be drained of water and permitting -- opening modifier error
(B) steam engines increased coal production in eighteenth-century England by permitting the drainage of mines and the
(C) steam engines in eighteenth-century England allowed an increase in coal production by permitting the drainage of mine water and permitting -- permitting is redundant here?
(D) steam engines increased coal production in eighteenth-century England by allowing water to be drained out of mines and
(E) eighteenth-century use of steam engines increased English coal production by draining mines and -- opening modifier error ; parallelism issue - by draining and extraction are not parallel
I chose D -- by allowing X and Y ; X = water to be drained out of mines, Y = extraction of deeper layers of coal . I believe both water and extraction here are nouns.
AjiteshArun ,
mikemcgarry ,
egmat ,
GMATNinja , other experts - can you please help with eliminating options C and D ?
Dear
Skywalker18I'm happy to respond.
I see that my intelligent fellow expert
AjiteshArun already responded, but I will add a few more thoughts.
Many students, both native English speaker and non-native speakers, have the mistaken notion that parallelism is a grammatical structure. It is
not. Parallelism is a
logical structure, and the matching grammar merely serves to elucidate the underlying logical correspondences. Just because two nouns are the same part of speech does not mean they would be appropriate for parallelism. Here's a disastrous sentence:
I cooked dinner with seven carrots, with my biggest pot, and with my friend Chris.
At the level of grammar, I have three prepositional phrase of the form "
with" + [noun], so the grammar is all matching, but of course the logical relationships are 100% different. That sentence is so bad it's comical.
Much in the same way, "
water" and "
extraction" indeed are both nouns, but they do not have a logically parallel relationship. The word "
extraction" is an action-noun, describing a human activity, and "
water" is a concrete noun, a substances that is the concern or focus of a human activity. By contrast, the OA, choice (B) has the two nouns in parallel "
the drainage" and "
the extraction": these are action nouns describing two human activities that would done in tandem and combine to result in greater coal production. In (B), there is a profound coherence between the grammar and the logic, whereas in (D), there's a mismatch between grammar and logic.
In a well written GMAT SC sentence, grammar & logic &
rhetoric are all coherent--all work together to support meaning.
Does all this make sense?
Mike