samsung1234 wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
Quote:
(A) exist at the core of nearly all galaxies and the mass of each black hole is proportional to
(A) doesn’t seem all that bad. It certainly sounds fine, but there’s a problem with the parallelism and meaning.
Before we get into that, consider the following:
- I believe that Santa Claus is real and that the Knicks will win the 2018 NBA title. → We have two parallel phrases (subordinate clauses, if you like jargon) that begin with “that.” And that’s great: it’s super-clear that these are two things that I believe.
- I believe that Santa Claus is real and the Knicks will win the 2018 NBA title. → Now the parallelism is different. Without “that”, we just have two parallel, independent clauses: “I believe that Santa Claus is real” and “the Knicks will win the NBA title.” That changes the meaning: now, the sentence doesn’t connect “I believe” with “the Knicks will win the NBA title.” And it seems that the latter clause is a fact, rather than something I BELIEVE is true.
We have a similar situation in (A). On both sides of the “and”, we have full, independent clauses:
- “Scientists have recently found evidence that black holes exist at the core of nearly all galaxies…”
- ”…the mass of each black hole is proportional to its host galaxy.”
Here’s the problem: the second independent clause is just a completely separate statement. The second clause (“the mass of each black hole is proportional…”) seems to be a separate fact; without “that” in front of that clause, it’s not clear that scientists have found evidence to support the statement. The statement is just a separate thing.
There’s also a comparison problem with (A). We have “the mass of each black hole is proportional to its host galaxy”, which is illogical: the mass of each black hole might be proportional to
the mass of its host galaxy, but it’s weird to suggest that the mass is somehow proportional to the galaxy itself.
So we have a couple of (admittedly somewhat subtle) reasons to eliminate (A).
I actually only eliminated A because of the comparison, but I was wondering about the reasoning of the first part of your analysis in A. In your example about the Knicks, could we not say that "I believe that Santa Claus is real and the Knicks will win the 2018 NBA title." works because the first 'that' "distributes" out to the Knicks to mean the following: "[I believe that] Santa claus is real and [I believe that] the Knicks will win the 2018 NBA title"?
I also question the statement regarding the Knicks ("And it seems that the latter clause is a fact, rather than something I BELIEVE is true.") because it's not an independent clause. I would be inclined to agree if the structure included a comma before the and, then it's without a doubt a separate unrelated fact.
I know you don't like to nitpick about comma usage, but I feel as though this might still be parallel in it's current form.
I'm not 100% sure, so I would greatly appreciate your input. Thanks!
GMATNinjaInteresting question!
Maybe there's a better way to frame the choice about whether to use "that" for the clause about the Knicks. I would argue that the first option is totally unambiguous, because it's clearly stating that I have two beliefs: one about Santa and one about the Knicks. Whereas in the second example, there's more than one way you might interpret it: perhaps the "that" applies to both clauses, or perhaps we have two independent thoughts.
Moreover, without the second "that," you might read the first part of the second sentence "I believe that Santa Claus is real and," and anticipate that you're about to get another description of Santa: "I believe that Santa Claus is real
and very lazy," or "I believe that Santa Claus is real and needs to learn to respect boundaries," for example.
So when you see "I believe that Santa Clause is real and the Knicks..." you might initially feel as though you're reading nonsense. Of course, you can figure out what's actually going on by rereading, but the use of "that" prevents this confusion in the first place.
In other words, I want
something to clarify the sentence. If I use a comma, you're right, it sounds as though I have two independent ideas, so that's not a great solution. Ultimately, I think you've got a point that the second sentence isn't definitively wrong or illogical, but it's not as good as the clearer alternative in which we use "that."
In essence, it's less about right and wrong, and more about degrees of clarity.
I hope that helps!
_________________
GMAT/GRE/EA tutors @
www.gmatninja.com (
hiring!) |
YouTube |
Articles |
IG Beginners' Guides:
RC |
CR |
SC |
Complete Resource Compilations:
RC |
CR |
SC YouTube LIVE webinars:
all videos by topic +
24-hour marathon for UkraineQuestion Explanation Collections:
RC |
CR |
SC