Many policymakers and economists agree that the Arboria needs to curb

Many policymakers and economists agree that the Arboria needs to curb domestic demand for foreign goods while investing in new domestic industrial capacity, a shift that both should result in increased exports and reclaim domestic markets that are lost to imported goods.

The correct idiom "both X and Y" should have similar types X and Y.

A. both should result in increased exports and reclaim domestic markets that are -- wrong

B. should both result in increased exports and domestic markets being reclaimed that were -- usage of "being", wordy

C. should result in both increased exports and reclaim domestic markets -- noun and verb conjoined by and

D. should result both in increased exports and domestic markets being reclaimed that had been -- usage of being

E. should result in both increased exports and the reclaiming of domestic markets -- CORRECT, both <noun> and <noun>

So, answer should be E

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

Is the use of "reclaiming of domestic markets" correct here instead of "reclamation of domestic markets"?

IMO both works.

If you look at the sentence, it says "should result in both A and B", so you can break it down into:
- Should result in A (increased exports)
- Should result in B (the reclaiming of domestic markets)
>> Both are noun phrases

In this case, the word "the" before "reclaiming" signals a use of gerund (verb+ing as a noun), which works in a similar fashion as the noun "reclamation".

Hey Debo both will be correct. refer below an excerpt from mgmat:

"In any list of action nouns, always choose the complex gerund phrase (often with articles and the word Of) over the simple gerund phrase"

wrong: The rebels demanded the withdrawal of government forces from disputed regions AND releasing certain political prisoners.
wrong: The rebels demanded the withdrawal of government forces from disputed regions AND THE releasing OF certain political prisoners.
right: The rebels demanded the withdrawal of government forces from disputed regions AND THE RELEASE OF certain political prisoners.
right: he rebels demanded the withdrawal of government forces from disput­ ed regions, significant reductions in overall troop levels, THE raising OF the rebel flag on holidays, AND a general pardon.

Hope this helps a little.

Why is c wrong.. ????? please explain why reclaim is wrong

siddharthfrancis When we see the construction "both X and Y," then the X and Y need to be parallel terms, meaning that they must be the same part of speech and be used in the same way. In C we have BOTH increased exports AND reclaim. "Increased exports" is a noun phrase, while "reclaim" is a verb, so this has to go. In fact, if you look through the answers, you'll find that ALL of the wrong answers fail this test. The terms after "both" and "and" don't match. However, "the reclaiming" actually serves as a noun (we could say, for instance, that "the reclaiming took a long time"), so we can make it parallel to "increased exports."
_________________

A. both should result in increased exports and reclaim domestic markets that are: Misplaced 'both'

B. should both result in increased exports and domestic markets being reclaimed that were: Misplaced 'both'

C. should result in both increased exports and reclaim domestic markets: 'in reclaim domestic markets' doesn't make any sense

D. should result both in increased exports and domestic markets being reclaimed that had been: 'being reclaimed that had been' unnecessary & wordy

E. should result in both increased exports and the reclaiming of domestic markets: Correct

Please hit kudos if my explanation helped!!

Thanks,
Anurag

Here's the official explanation provided by the GMAC for this question:

The sentence tells us that experts agree that the nation of Arboria needs to shift demand away from imports and invest in domestic industrial capacity. Such a change would likely increase exports and result in substituting domestic products for imported products. These predicted outcomes can be expressed using the form both … and …, which requires parallelism in the phrases conjoined.

Option A: The verbs should result and reclaim are not parallel as required by the usage both … and …. Note: switching the order of both and should with no other change would produce a correct sentence.

Option B: There are two flaws in this answer choice. Because should immediately precedes both, the word both and the word and must each be followed by a verb form that fits with should. But should cannot fit with domestic markets being reclaimed, so the required parallelism between verb forms is lacking. A second flaw concerns the awkward and jarring separation of the pronoun that from what it refers to, i.e., domestic markets.

Option C: This answer choice is flawed in the placement of both. Its position requires that in this both … and … construction, the second part of the construction consists of a noun or noun phrase parallel to increased exports. Instead, we have a verb phrase reclaim domestic markets, and this does not fit with the preposition in, which has both parts of the construction within its scope.

Option D: The two parts of the both … and … construction lack parallelism; the second part would be better (and unambiguous) if and were immediately followed by in. A second flaw concerns the awkward and jarring separation of the pronoun that from what it refers back to, i.e., domestic markets.

Option E: Correct. Each part of the both … and … construction consists of a noun phrase, each governed by the preposition in. The phrase domestic markets is modified by the phrase lost to imported goods.

The correct answer is E.

Please note that I'm not the author of this explanation. I'm just posting it here since I believe it can help the community.

Many policymakers and economists agree that the Arboria needs to curb domestic demand for foreign goods while investing in new domestic industrial capacity, a shift that both should result in increased exports and reclaim domestic markets that are lost to imported goods.


A. both should result in increased exports and reclaim domestic markets that are

-- Not parallel.

B. should both result in increased exports and domestic markets being reclaimed that were

-- 'being' is incorrect.

C. should result in both increased exports and reclaim domestic markets

-- noun and verb conjoined -- not parallel.

D. should result both in increased exports and domestic markets being reclaimed that had been

-- 'being' is incorrect.

E. should result in both increased exports and the reclaiming of domestic markets

-- Parallelism maintained. Correct.
_________________

In this question, in E, can a noun and a gerund be parallel. Also, here gerund we are talking about is complex gerund. Really need inputs on this.

Hi Experts GMATNinja mikemcgarry egmat VeritasKarishma

Can't we assume that SHOULD is implied before the verb 'reclaim' in option-A and take structure parallel in as-it-is form?

a shift that both should result in increased exports and [should] reclaim domestic markets that are lost to imported goods.

Regards
Rohit

I reject C because:
C. should result in both increased exports and reclaim domestic markets
increased exports- NOUN
reclaim domestic markets--verb Noun
reason: not parallel

Hi mSKR

But if we imply SHOULD in both parts, the structure will become parallel.

a shift that both-
should result in increased exports
and [should] reclaim domestic markets that are lost to imported goods.

SO my original question is Whether it is safe to imply 'SHOULD'.

Before discussing (A), let's take another look at the parallelism in (E), where we have, "a shift should result in both increased exports and the reclaiming of domestic markets":

• The meaning is clear and unambiguous because the parallelism can ONLY be interpreted one way: (1) a shift should result in increased exports and (2) a shift should result in the reclaiming of domestic markets.
• The "both/and" construction after "a shift should result in" causes the reader to EXPECT two distinct things that the shift should result in.

Now in (A), the both/and construction comes after "a shift that" -- this results in an ENTIRELY different parallel structure: (1) a shift that [verb 1] and (2) a shift that [verb 2]. In this case, the reader expects two separate and distinct verbs, so I don't think a second "should" is implied at all. In fact, I'd argue that the structure implies that the "should" actually should NOT be shared by both verbs.

Also, if we wanted the "should" to be shared by both verbs, it would be MUCH clearer to just write, "... a shift that should both [verb 1] and [verb 2]."

The parallelism in (E) is much clearer, and the reader doesn't have to do any work (i.e. deciding whether to insert an implied "should") to arrive at the intended meaning. That makes (E) a much better sentence.

I hope that helps!
_________________

For option C, D and E how to know if increased is a verb or participle, or noun (phrase) ?

One of the trickier things in SC is separating VERBS and WORDS THAT LOOK LIKE VERBS. You really have to look at what job the word *does* in the sentence (and the same word can do different jobs in different sentences).

"She increased the number of hours she studied each week."

Here 'increased' is a verb--it is something a subject ('she') does.

"The increased weight tripled the cost of the shipment."

Here, 'increased' is a modifier--it is describing the weight.

"The increase in weight tripled the cost of the shipment."

Here, 'increase' is a noun and is the subject of the sentence.


So in C,D, and E, what is 'increased' doing? Does it have a subject? Is it describing something? Or does it have a verb that it does?
_________________

MartyTargetTestPrep AndrewN
Can you please explain why option e) is correct? By process of elimination, I get it why the other four options are wrong but still don't get it how option e) is correct