Saumya2403 wrote:
I'm not satisfied with OA as coming to parallelism with 'something' and with 'something' follows a parallel structure I think.
Somebody please clear me.
Hi OA is A indeed
What you are saying is correct but this not absolutely necessary ; we use this construction to remove ambiguity .In this sentence as such there is no ambiguity as we are good using just one with .
Here is the excerpt from Manhattan SC guide to help make things clear .
Almost anything in a sentence can be made parallel to a similar Parallel Element.
Elements Examples
Nouns Her expression reflected BOTH anger AND relief.
Adjectives The park was NEITHER accessible NOR affordable.
We collected BOTH second- AND third-grade books.
Verbs The custodian cleaned the basement AND washed the windows.
Infinitives We would like NOT ONLY to hear your side of the story BUT
ALSO to provide a response.
Participles The actor left quickly, shunning fans AND ducking into a car.
Prepositional It was important to leave the money in the drawer RATHER
Phrases THAN on the table.
(Note: the prepositions do not always have to be the same.)
Subordinate They contended that the committee was biased AND that it
Clauses should be disbanded.
Some verbs or forms derived from verbs have more than one word: was opening, can lose, to
increase. You can often split apart these expressions, so that the first word or words count
across all of the elements.
The division WAS opening offices, hiring staff AND investing in equipment.
The railroad CAN EITHER lose more money OR solve its problems.
They wanted TO increase awareness, spark interest, AND motivate purchases.
Parallel clauses should start with the same word.
Wrong: I want to retire to a place WHERE I can relax AND THAT has low taxes.
Right: I want to retire to a place WHERE I can relax AND WHERE the taxes are low
Note that in the example above, the principle of concision yields to the mandate of parallelism.
Likewise, do not over-shorten any element. Be sure that each element is complete.
Wrong:Ralph likes BOTH THOSE WHO are popular AND WHO are not.
Right:Ralph likes BOTH THOSE WHO are popular AND THOSE WHO are not.
In the first sentence, the second element cannot stand alone: likes... WHO are not does not
make sense. We have to write likes... THOSE WHO are not. (However, we do not have to
repeat the word popular, which is understood in the second element.)Here is the explanation
Gregory Peck was the quintessential Mills and Boon hero, with dark and handsome looks, and a vibrant personality that would make anyone notice him from afar.
A.with dark and handsome looks, and a vibrant personality that would make anyone notice him from afar.
B.with dark and handsome looks and with a vibrant personality that makes anyone notice him from afar.
C.with a dark, handsome and vibrant personality that make anyone notice him from afar.
D.with dark and handsome looks, a vibrant personality that would make anyone notice him from afar.
E.of dark and handsome looks, and with a vibrant personality that would make anyone notice him from afar.
A is correct as we have proper tense would that suggests the events happened in the past .
B makes here clearly wrong as the sentence is in past tense and there is prediction done in past so we have to use would .
C There is modifier error in this choice . Dark , handsome and vibrant all modify personality .This seems illogical . How can personality be dark and handsome .
D Proper parallelism is not maintained here we need "and" before a vibrant personality .
E preposition "of " is not apt here .