The FDA enacted these recent restrictions both to prohibit individual

+1 A

I selected this based on idiom BOTH x AND y

is this correct elimination ??

There are 2 Idioms on this questions:

1. Both X & Y (which eliminates B & D)
2. Prohibit X from Y (which eliminates C & E)

Answer is A

I am not good with idioms so spotted the mistakes of words used in the options.

Posted from GMAT ToolKit

Dear farhanc85

Here's a free resource to help you with idioms:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-idiom-ebook/

Mike

When read the sentence you need to check whether idioms are used properly.

In our case idioms used are prohibit... and forbid...

Prohibit FROM -- Correct idiom
Forbid TO - Correct idiom

Now check which options have these...

Only option A has this...

Hope this clears the clouds...

In this question FDA enacted recent restrictions and these restrictions are for some purpose so we will ask question what is the purpose of these restrictions..

We got 2 i.e. To Prohibit ...... And 2nd one is To forbid .....

So whenever we see some action with purpose we use infinitive of purpose to + verb.

Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

I was asking specifically about the parallelism how come in terms of parallelism how come "to prohibit" and "to forbid" are parallel but "forming" and "advertise" don't have to be parallel? I understand the idiomatic portion

There are 2 issues here with Parallellism -

1. Both X and Y
2. To X .............To Y

Both the issues have been correctly addressed only in option (A)


The FDA enacted these recent restrictions both to prohibit individual physicians from forming financial partnerships with pharmaceutical companies and to forbid the companies to advertise directly to the physicians.

Among the given options only (A) is hence the correct choice.

sislam,

I think you have misunderstood parallelism a bit. In a parallel structure both [X] and [Y] , you are correct that X and Y needs to be logically and grammatically of the same structure. But it doesn't mean that they should have the same kind of words in the whole phrase. Let me explain this further.

In a list [X] and [Y] can be of the form :
1. All Nouns
2. All Verbs
3. All modifiers
4. All clauses or phrases.

Now, in this example the list contains to-verb and then do something. The only structure that needs to be parallel is the to-verb and the 'do something' that comes after a the infinitive depends on the idiomatic usage of the corresponding action.

both [X] and [Y]
both to prohibit individual physians.... and to forbid companies ...
[X] -> to prohibit [noun]
[Y] -> to forbid [noun]

Rest of the phrase\clause structure doesnt matter as long as their usage is correct and logical.

So to answer your question, forming and to advertise need not be parallel because they are not the parallel structure.

C is wrong for another reason and you will find this error common among GMAT\OG questions.
both always takes 'and' and only and no other conjuction is used. Here the structure is both [X] and also [Y]. 'and' + also is redundant both conveying the same thing.

Remember 'both' and 'between' always need 'and' to be of correct usage.

Hope this helps.

The parallelism is between both X and Y and not what you assumed.

a) both X an Y - parallel (to prohibit is parallel with to forbid)
b) both X while Y - not correct idiom
c) to both and also to - not parallel. And, both needs and, use of also is redundant.
d) both X as well as Y - incorrect idiom
e) to prohibit both X and Y - not parallel(distorts the meaning)

Th parrallel elements are "to prohibit" and " to forbid" - the parallelism structure does not have anything to do with the rest - "from forming" and "to advertise" has no bearing with the parallelism - appropriate prepositions and forms has to be used as necessary.

Would you say there is a parallelism error in the following sentence?

I love to play with my sister, sing in the rain and walk alone..... does the question arise why "with my sister", "in the rain" and "alone" are not parallel?

Dear sislam04,

I'm happy to respond to your question. I see that sayantanc2k replied, but I want to take a slightly broader view.

Students have a few typical misconceptions about parallelism. Fundamentally, students conceive of parallelism primarily as a grammatical structure. It is not. Parallelism is primarily a logical structure, and the matching grammar merely mirrors the underlying logic. Following this misconception, students mistakenly believe that parallelism means that the two branches have to be lockstep precision, matching down to the last detail. That's absurd. There only has to be enough grammatical matching to make the logical pattern clear.

Here's the OA of the question that I wrote:
The FDA enacted these recent restrictions both to prohibit individual physicians from forming financial partnerships with pharmaceutical companies and to forbid the companies to advertise directly to the physicians.

How much has to match in parallelism? Only enough to make the logical pattern clear. The FDA had two purposes in enacting these restrictions, to prohibit something and to forbid something. These are both expressed as infinitives of purpose. Those two are in parallel, so they have to match, and they do: both are infinitives: "both to prohibit . . . and to forbid . . . " That's the parallelism, right there, between those two infinitives. That's it.

What happens after that high level matching is 100% irrelevant to the parallelism. Once the logical pattern of matching is established, the job of parallelism has been fulfilled, and it places no more requirements on the sentence.

More importantly, within the two infinitive clauses, we have to follow the rules of idioms. The verb "prohibit" idiomatically takes from + [gerund]. The verb "forbid" idiomatically takes the infinitive. When I designed this question, I specifically chose two verbs that would have two different idioms. For more help on idioms, see the free GMAT idiom flashcards. The requirements of parallelism never never never supersede the rules of idiom.

You see, two verbs in parallel could have different tenses, or one could be active and one passive, or one have a long modifying clause and the other not. It doesn't matter. Parallelism is not a mathematical pattern that forces every single element into a precise Procrustean pattern. Parallelism is a logical pattern, and the matching grammar need only make clear the logic, no more.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Official Explanation

This is a tricky one. We have the "both X and Y" parallel construction. Notice that the variants "both X while Y", "both X and also Y", and "both X as well as Y" --- choices (B), (C), and (D) respectively ---- are all incorrect on the GMAT. The two infinitive verbs, "to prohibit" and "to forbid" must match in parallel form, and they do in all five. What follows those two verbs does not have to be parallel; furthermore, each of those verbs has its own idiomatical requirements. As this blog discusses, the proper idiom for "forbid" is "to forbid A to do X" — the verb "forbid" must take the infinitive. By contrast, the proper idiom for "prohibit" is "to prohibit A from doing X" — the verb "prohibit" must take the preposition "from" followed by a gerund. The two verbs, "forbid" and "prohibit" have similar meanings, so it's ironic that they have starkly different idiomatic requirements. The only answer that fulfills the idiomatic requirements of both verbs is (A).

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.