Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States

Hi All,

Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions.

Let's first understand the intended meaning of the sentence. The sentence is talking about two effects of systematic clearing of forests in the US.

Positive aspects:
a. It created farmland.
b. It gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture.

Negative aspects:
a. It caused erosion.
b. It deforested whole region very quickly.

Error Analysis: There are two positive effects of systematic clearing of forests. The first entity has the verb “did create” and the second verb is “gave”. This is incorrect because “did” is applicable to both the verbs. Hence, use of “create” is correct but use of “gave” is incorrect because we cannot write past tense verb after “did”.

POE:

A. Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also: Incorrect for the reason stated above.

B. Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast), which gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also: Incorrect.
1. By removing “and”, this choice has removed the intended list in the sentence. This change distorts the meaning. Rather than saying that clearing of forests led to two positive effects, this choice presents the second effect as the result of the first effect.
2. Relative pronoun “which” incorrectly refers to “farmland”, meaning that farmland gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture.

C. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States, creating farmland (especially in the Northeast) and giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also: Incorrect.
1. There is no main verb in the first part of the sentence. We have a fragment here.
2. Verb-ing modifiers preceded by comma modify the preceding clause. There is no clause preceding these modifiers because there is no main verb.

D. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also: Correct. Notice that it is not necessary to use the idiom “not only… but also…” here. The sentence essentially is presenting the positive and the negative sides of the systematic clearing of forests. The first part of the sentence is presenting the two positive effects in correct parallel manner. “but” correctly presents the contrast and is followed by the negative effects of clearing of forests. Essentially, there is no change in the intended meaning of the sentence. This choice is still presenting the two contrasting sides of clearing of forests.

E. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States not only created farmland (especially in the Northeast), giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it: Incorrect. By removing “and”, this choice removes the intended parallel list. Per the original sentence, there are two independent positive effects of systematic clearing of forests. But this choice makes the second independent effect the result of the first effect. By doing so, this choice distorts the meaning of the sentence.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

According to my understanding, the following construcions are...

NOT ONLY X BUT ALSO Y: CORRECT
NOT ONLY X BUT IT/THEY ALSO Y: INCORRECT
NOT ONLY X BUT Y: CORRECT
X, BUT Y: CORRECT
X, BUT ALSO Y: CORRECT

The ans looks like D.What is the OA?

not only A....but also B should be used when both A and B are presented in a positive manner or negative manner.
Since it is a mix of both in this case you have to show contrast using 'but'

It is D

Logically the 2 parts are showing a contrast, on one hand, clearing of forests was beneficial, but it was harmful on the other. D brings out this contrast well with a single "but"

Not only X but also Y is used to present 2 similar effects, for eg: not only did X create farmland, but it also gave inexpensive furniture.

E too has the not only..But.. construction. so its wrong

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of this sentence is that the systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture but also caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Verb Forms + Tenses + Parallelism

• “did + simple present tense verb” is the correct construction, as “did” succinctly conveys that the action took place in the past.
• "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma.
• “not only A but also B” is the correct, idiomatic usage; A must be parallel to B.
• The introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “giving” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
• Any elements linked by a conjunction ("but" in this sentence) must be parallel.

A: Trap. This answer choice incorrectly uses the construction "did + simple past tense verb ("gave" in this case)" to refer to an action that concluded in the past; please remember, “did + simple present tense verb” is the correct construction, as “did” succinctly conveys that the action took place in the past. Further, Option A alters the meaning of the sentence through the use of the "not only A but also B" construction; the use of this idiomatic construction fails to convey the needed sense of contrast, incorrectly implying that the systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture and it also caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions; the intended meaning is that the systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture but by contrast also caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions.

B: This answer choice incorrectly refers to "farmland" with "which gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture", illogically implying that the farmland gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture; the intended meaning is that the systematic clearing of forests gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture; please remember, "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma. Moreover, Option B further alters the meaning of the sentence through the use of the "not only A but also B" construction; the use of this idiomatic construction fails to convey the needed sense of contrast, incorrectly implying that the systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland and it also caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions; the intended meaning is that the systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland but by contrast also caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions. Additionally, Option B fails to maintain parallelism between A ("did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland") and B ("caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions") in the idiomatic construction "not only A but also B"; please remember, “not only A but also B” is the correct, idiomatic usage; A must be parallel to B.

C: This answer choice fails to form a complete sentence; as "creating" and "giving" are both present participles ("verb+ing") acting as noun modifiers, and "causes" and "deforested" are part of a modifying phrase, there is no active verb to act upon the subject noun "The systematic clearing".

D: Correct. This answer choice acts upon the subject noun "the systematic clearing of forests" with the active verbs "created" and "gave" to form a complete thought, leading to a complete sentence. Further, Option D uses the phrase "and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture", conveying the intended meaning - that the systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland and as a separate action gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture. Moreover, Option D avoids the meaning error seen in Options A, B, and E, as it does not employ the "not only A but also B" construction, conveying the intended meaning - that the systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture but by contrast also caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions. Additionally, Option D avoids the tense error seen in Option A, as it does not utilize the helping verb "did". Besides, Option D correctly maintains parallelism between "The systematic clearing of forests...and furniture" and "it also caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions".

E: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture"; the use of the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "giving" in this sentence)" construction illogically implies that by creating farmland, the systematic clearing of forests in the United States gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture; the intended meaning is that the systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland and as a separate action gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture; please remember, the introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “giving” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship. Moreover, Option E further alters the meaning of the sentence through the use of the "not only A but B" construction; the use of this construction fails to convey the needed sense of contrast, incorrectly implying that the systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland and it also caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions; the intended meaning is that the systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland but by contrast also caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions. Further, Option E fails to maintain parallelism between "created farmland" and "it caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions"; please remember, any elements linked by a conjunction ("but" in this sentence) must be parallel.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Comma + Present Participles for Cause-Effect Relationships" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~3 minutes):



To understand the concept of "Which/Who/Whose/Where" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

It should be between D and E

A. Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also -Incorrect, gave should be give

B. Not only did the systematic clearing of forests in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast), which gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also - I would prefer a present participle form "giving" instead of "which gave"

C. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States, creating farmland (especially in the Northeast) and giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also -Introducing sentence fragmentation.

D. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also

E. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States not only created farmland (especially in the Northeast), giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it

Out of D, E

D for me.

The sentence is saying that 'systematic clearing of forests' had couple good effect but it had couple bad effects also.

good effects --> created farmland and gave inexpensive furniture and houses

But

bad effects --> caused erosion and deforested whole regions.

D. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also caused erosion and deforested whole regions.

Not only DID the systematic clearing of forests CREATE farmland ..
and GIVE/GAVE consumers
GAVE is not correct ... did + 2nd form

'not only .. but also' construction is used for items that are logically parallel.
the first half of the sentence is positive (create/give) while the second half is negative (erosion/deforested) .. so the use of this construction is not appropriate

D is the correct ans. HTH

'not only...' 'but also...' constructions are tricky to get idiomatically correct. However, in this problem, the point is moot. Not only A but also B implies that A and B are similar, with B being a case more extreme than or similar to A. Since 'farmland' and 'inexpensive furniture' are good things, but 'erosion' and 'deforested regions' are clearly bad things, the 'not only-but also' construction simply cannot be used in this sentence. (D), the only answer that removes this construction, is correct.

I'd argue both are still similar elements, because they are both the effects of clearing forests. Similar = having common properties, but different.

I've not heard of the similar rule for NOT ONLY....BUT ALSO rule. Can you elaborate?

NOT ONLY... BUT ALSO sentences are typically used to talk about two different things which run in parallel. In this case, I'd agree with Ashish above and note that farmland = good, erosion = bad; they might both result from the clearing of forests, but they don't run in parallel directions, and should therefore not be spliced together with a NOT ONLY... BUT ALSO conjunction.

A simple requisite of not only is the element of inbuilt accentuation. But here there is no such accentuation but only a contrast. Therefore a rapid fire shot will be to eliminate all ‘not only’ choices summarily( whether accompanied by but also or not) namely A, B and E and then squarely dump C for holding a fragment, and end up finally with the bull’s eye hit of D

It should be D

Not only , but also is used with two things that a parallel.

Here one is giving a positive effect and the second a negative , and hence this usage is not suitable.
Here it is illogical to use "not only, but also"

So A and B out
C is a fragment - Out
E - "giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture" - this is modifying the previous clause, which again is illogical - Out.

D remains - Answer


Thanks,
Ankit

Post by one of the manhattan gmat expert , RON , on option D , as to why is it right.

https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/not ... t3129.html

-Jyothi

Here's the first look in what I wanted to test for: proper idiom (not only, but also), grammatical construction (complete sentence), misplaced modifier (gave/giving)

A. Not only did the systematic clearing of forest in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive house and furniture, but it also Wrong - "create" should be past tense and parallel to "gave"; "but it also" is a red flag, but it seems grammatically correct.

B. Not only did the systematic clearing of forest in the United States create farmland (especially in the Northeast), which gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also Wrong - "which gave" improperly modifies farmland; there should be no comma before "but also" because it shares the same subject.

C. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States, creating farmland (especially in the Northeast) and giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but also Wrong - The subject "the systematic" needs a verb; "but also" lacks a subject too.

D. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States created farmland (especially in the Northeast) and gave consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it also Correct - "It" takes the "systematic clearing"; the verbs are parallel.

E. The systematic clearing of forests in the United States not only created farmland (especially in the Northeast), giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture, but it Wrong - lacks correct idiomatic expression (not only...but also); "it" doesn't have a proper referent, as the subject should already be implied

IMO D

Can we say that in sentence A and B dont have an independent clause??? Please help..

I eliminated A and B for the reason mentioned above. I need to know whether my reasoning is correct or not.

First note that not only..but also is a conjunction, a correlative conjunction.

Now option A: There are 2 independent clauses in this sentence as shown below (the verb error in the first clause is corrected):

Independent clause 1: The systematic clearing of forests in the United States did create farmland (especially in the Northeast) and give consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture.
Independent clause 2: It caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions.

These 2 independent clauses are joined by a correlative conjunction not only.. but also.

Now option B: There are 2 independent clauses in this sentence too as shown below (The modifier error in the first clause and the subject error in the second clause are corrected):

Independent clause 1: The systematic clearing of forests in the United States did create farmland (especially in the Northeast), giving consumers relatively inexpensive houses and furniture.
Independent clause 2: It caused erosion and very quickly deforested whole regions.

Again these 2 independent clauses are joined by a correlative conjunction not only.. but also.

Therefore one cannot eliminate option A and option B on the ground that there is no independent clause. In each sentence there are 2 independent clauses joined by a correlative conjunction.