arj_singh1976
Patience Lovell Wright, whose travelling waxworks exhibit preceded Madame Tussaud's work by 30 years, became
well known as much because of having an eccentric personality as for having skillfully rendered popular public figures in wax.(A) well known as much because of having an eccentric personality as for having skillfully rendered popular public figures in wax.
(B) well known as much for having an eccentric personality as for her skillful wax renderings of popular public figures
(C) well known as much because of her eccentric personality as she was for her skillful wax renderings of poular public figure
(D) as well known for having an eccentric personality as having skillfully rendered popular public figures in wax.
(E) as well known for her eccentric personality as for her skillful wax renderings of popular public figures.
maaadhu
Mike,
For the above question in the link, choice
E is the correct answer. However, I have a question regarding choice
A. I read all responses mentioning
A is not parallel. But my question is in Choice
A,
"
because of" - preposition
"
having eccentric personality" - gerund phrase
similarly
"
for" - preposition
"
having ....." - gerund phrase
Since both are followed by "preposition & gerund phrase", why is
A not parallel? I really appreciate your explanation.
Thanks,
Dear
maaadhu,
This is a subtle issue about parallelism. When prepositional phrases are in parallel, then as a general rule (not 100%, but a general rule), parallelism requires the
same preposition. Especially if the parallelism is a comparison of two elements, so that we are striving to show the contrast of these two elements as clearly as possible, then parallelism almost always demands the
same preposition. Think about the poor general reader of this sentence. This reader starts finding out about Ms. Wright, and when the reader gets to the words "
became as well known for ...", the poor reader has to keep track of the fact that (1) thing #1, immediately after those words, will be something Ms. Wright was known for; (2) a some point latter in the sentence, there will be a thing #2, that is also something Ms. Wright was known for; (3) the sentence is saying that Ms. Wright was known for thing #1 and thing #2 equally well. That's a ton of logical connections all at once! If we are demanding that much of the reader, at the very least, we want to make it crystal clear where thing #1 ends and thing #2 begins, and we do that by using the exact same preposition as a marker of the transition.
In shorter sentences, in which the structure is not complicated, we might use two different prepositions, but in a longer sentence such as this, we need to repeat the same preposition for clarity.
Does all this make sense?
Mike