Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
23 Oct 2020, 03:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
ps_dahiya
GMATNinja
I was wondering whether someone could help me with option C, my issue is the following, in C we have lead to (a lowering of interest rates ,along with fears about inflation, a rally in stocks and bonds and a weakening of the dollar) so the outter parallelism is ok , regarding the inner one (a lowering of interest rates , along with fears about inflation ) here we have a lowering of which can be distributed in both parts, a lowering of interest rates
a lowering of fears about inflation, so I do not understand what is the error in answer choice C is it a parallelism issue or some kind of meaning issue?
16 Feb 2021, 18:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
ps_dahiya
This question is based on Parallelism.
The sentence gives a list of things that a “large drop in oil prices should lead to”. So, all the items in the list must be parallel to each other.
The non-underlined portion of the sentence contains two noun phrases – a rally in stocks and a weakening of the dollar. Therefore, the underlined portion must also be a noun phrase of similar structure.
Option A contains a combination of a participle and a noun - lowering interest rates whereas the structure of the other items in the list is article + noun + prepositional phrase. So, Option A can be eliminated.
Option C is more parallel to the non-underlined portion than is Option A, but is still not completely parallel because the construction of this option conveys the meaning that a large drop in process will also lead to “fears about inflation”. Since this meaning is illogical, Option C can be eliminated.
Option D also lacks parallelism. The phrase “interest rates being lowered” is not parallel to the noun phrase “a rally in stocks”. The construction of the former is noun + participle but the construction of the latter is article + noun + prepositional phrase. So, Option D can also be eliminated.
Option E repeats the lack of parallelism in Option D. Furthermore, the preposition “with” at the end of the option changes the structure of the non-underlined portion to that of a modifier, when it is actually the remaining part of the list of things that a “large drop in prices leads to”. So, Option E can be eliminated.
Option B maintains parallelism. It has the same structure as the non-underlined portion – article + noun + prepositional phrase. Therefore, B is the most appropriate option.
Jayanthi Kumar.
26 Feb 2021, 21:29
Kudos
Bookmarks
UNSTOPPABLE12
The answer is both. The faulty parallelism is easier to spot, since it's a mechanical issue.
First, notice the construction in (B):
Quote:
Here the parallelism is simple and logical. According to one view, the drop in oil prices will lead to three consequences, all of which are nouns split up cleanly by commas: a lowering, a rally, and a weakening. So far so good.
Now contrast this option with (C):
Quote:
Again, we have the same three nouns, but it's harder to see because the modifying phrase in blue breaks up the list. Strictly speaking, the list is no longer parallel. Instead of NOUN, NOUN, NOUN, we have NOUN, MODIFIER, NOUN, NOUN. If you wanted to, you could choose (B) over (C) on these grounds alone.
But it's worth digging a little deeper to see how the parallelism is connected to how we interpret the sentence. Because "along with fears of inflation" looks, at first, as though it's another element in a list of items, it seems like "the fear of inflation" is one of the consequences of the drop in oil prices.
But that makes no sense. Inflation, by definition, is an increase in prices. Why would a drop in oil prices cause people to be afraid that prices in general were going up? It makes far more sense to write that it's a "lowering of fears of inflation" that will be one of the consequences.
In (B), "lowering of" and "fears of inflation" appear in the same phrase, so it's clear that people are less frightened of inflation. In (C), when the phrase "fears of inflation" is cut off from the "lowering" piece by a comma, the meaning changes, and now it appears as though people are frightened of inflation itself. Put another way, the faulty parallelism muddies the logic of the sentence. The two are connected.
The takeaway: it's true that when you catch a faulty parallel construction, you can eliminate an option without too much deliberation, but it's good to remember that the whole point of proper parallelism -- and most grammar rules -- is to make sentences clearer for the reader.
So instead of seeing parallel construction as just another arbitrary rule to remember, you can view it as one of many tools in the service of our main goal: to pick the sentence that's the clearest and most coherent of the bunch.
I hope that clears things up!
