GMATE1 wrote:
I am confused by this question, while I did get it right, it took me quite a while. I have been working on parallelism questions. My approach is to use the approach outlined by
GMATNinja.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQgATaaw1ok&list=PLn5y_RKBkchQJFlkzVORO294uRALkO7Ud&index=2 (It seems to be the same strategy which the
Manhattan books recommend.)
The first step in this approach would be to find the parallelism marker(s). In this case I am not sure there are any. Arguably we could define "that...than" as our parallelism markers, however I have never seen "that...than" defined as parallelism markers and I doubt that they are any. Despite this, this question is still a case of parallelism, therefore I assumed there must also be parallelism marker(s).
GMATNinja or anyone else, I would highly appreciate a clarification!
When it comes to parallelism, the most important thing is to notice the parallelism triggers
when they appear and to evaluate the parallelism accordingly. But when you
don't have parallelism triggers, you want to be conservative. In other words, if you don't see parallelism markers, you probably shouldn't be eliminating options because of supposed parallelism errors!
Because I don't see any parallelism triggers here, the first question I ask myself is, "does the
comparison make sense in each option?" And we're looking for something that can logically be compared to "to go to the voters or work through Congress."
In (A), we have, "
going to the courts" was far more efficient for people who sought a new social or political goal than "
to go to the voters or work through Congress".
- Now, can "going" technically be parallel to "to go"? Well, sure: "-ing" words and infinitives can both certainly act as a nouns. But again, we don't have parallelism triggers here, so I'm not strictly worried about parallelism.
- A better question is, "Why on Earth are we switching from 'going" to 'to go'?" Why not use "going" for both to make the comparison crystal clear? Also, notice that we have "for people who sought a new social or political goal" right in the middle of the comparison--that makes it even harder for the reader to understand what's being compared. In fact, the structure here causes the reader to expect a different comparison altogether. Something like, "going to the courts was far more efficient for people who sought a new social or political goal than {for people who _______}." Of course you can figure out the intended meaning, but it takes some work.
- Does that make (A) wrong? Does it violate any strict parallelism rules? Well, no -- but the comparison is a bit confusing. That's not a strong enough reason to eliminate (A) right away, but we should look for something better.
In (B), the comparison has a different structure: "it was far more efficient
to go to the courts than
to go to the voters or work through Congress." This structure eliminates the issues we saw in (A):
- By putting "for people who sought a new social or political goal" before the comparison, it's clear that we aren't comparing those people to some other people. Rather, we are comparing two different things that those same people could do.
- Those two different things are written in exactly the same form ("to _____") and appear on either side of the word "than," making it crystal clear that we are comparing "to go to the courts" to "to go to the voters or work through Congress". (Notice that we DO have a parallel list in the non-underlined part: "... to (1) go to the voters OR (2) work through Congress.")
- Again, (A) doesn't necessarily break any rules. But the comparison is more clear and obvious in (B), making it a better choice.
Yes, this looks a lot like a parallelism thing, but it's really about clarity of meaning -- so we can't go on auto-pilot and make quick eliminations based on mechanical parallelism errors, exactly.
I hope that helps!