doe007 wrote:
It is ok to say:
(1) Last week, I visited the museum in Italy.
(2) Last week, I visited the museum in Italy and in Germany.
(3) Last week, I visited the museum in Italy and the museums in Germany, France, and Belgium.
(4) I want to drive each of the cars of George and Bill.
However, it is not ok to say:
(5) Last week, I visited the museum in Italy and the museum in Germany, France, and Belgium.
(6) Last week, I visited the museum in Italy and in 5 other countries.
The point here is, the same common word cannot refer to singular noun and plural noun (or the sense of plural) at the same time.
Dear
doe007,
With all due respect, it seems to me there's an inconsistency between what you say and sentence #2 ---- if #2 is correct, then there's no reason that #6 shouldn't be correct.
The phrasing "
the museum in Italy" sounds a little funny to me, only because there are so many museums in Italy you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one. I'm going to change "museum" to "parliament building", which presumably is something unique in each country. Then, I would assert
(7)
Last week, I visited the parliament building in Italy.
(8)
Last week, I visited the parliament building in Italy and in Germany.
(9)
Last week, I visited the parliament building in Italy, in Germany, in France, and in Spain.
(10)
Last week, I visited the parliament building in Italy and in three other countries.
(11)
Last week, I visited the parliament building in Italy and in twenty other countries.
I'm sure we both agree #7 is correct. If you accept #2 above as correct, then you would have to accept #8 as correct, and probably #9 as correct as well. But #10 is just a more concise way to say #9, so if #9 is correct, how can #10 not be correct? Finally, once we accept that a number is correct, then it is immaterial what number it is, so #11 would have to be correct also. I would assert all five are correct. I would be very curious to know where you think the correct sentences end and what you use as your criterion. Strictly, if using a singular for multiple referents is always incorrect, then not only #8-11 would be incorrect, but also your #2. If you allow #2, I think you have to allow all the rest. What do you think?
doe007 wrote:
For this reason, I conveyed that the sentence " (12) I would like to drive the car of my neighbor and of each one of his friends." is incorrect
But, the following sentences of your examples are grammatically correct.
(13) Last summer, I visited the Ben & Jerry's shop in Brattleboro and in Burlington.
(14) I have great appreciation for the car of each one of my five friends.
(15) I have great appreciation for the car of my five friends.
Hmm, #15 now strikes me as way too ambiguous, though grammatically correct. I don't understand your criterion --- if you think #13 & #14 are correct, how can you say #12 is incorrect? The words "
each one" indicates a singular individual --- indefinite, but singular. Therefore, it is of the form
[singular object]"of"[singular individual]"and of"[singular individual]either to say
(16) ....
the car of Lydia and of Hilda ....
or
(17) ....
the car of Lydia and of each one of her 27 friends ....
If you allow #16, there's no reason to reject #17.
doe007 wrote:
Now, back to the original sentence: Recent findings lend strong support to the theory that a black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way and of many of the 100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe.
Structure of the original sentence is:
..... a BH lies at the center of X and of Y estimated to exist in the universe.
If the sentence were as follows, I would have agreed that the parallel structure was maintained.
..... a BH lies at the center of X and of Y.
Here Y = "many of the 100 billion other galaxies"
To maintain the parallelism, we cannot break down "many of the 100 billion other galaxies" into two parts.
With reference to the original sentence:
What is "estimated to exist in the universe"? -- the answer is "100 billion other galaxies". This makes "100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe" one indivisible phrase.
Now see, we have two indivisible parts "many of the 100 billion other galaxies" and "100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe", and there is a overlap between these two parts. This situation creates the following two alternatives for us to consider:
1) Parallelism prevails: "the Milky Way" is parallel to "many of the 100 billion other galaxies", and "estimated to exist in the universe" is dangling after the parallel parts.
2) Modification prevails: "100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe" is indivisible. In that case, "the Milky Way" is not parallel to "many of the 100 billion other galaxies estimated to exist in the universe" in the perfect sense.
As "estimated to exist in the universe" is in non-underlined part, we need to treat second scenario above as our case.
Now at this point, I see that we may not agree on the same point and it is ok to leave the matter if you wish so.
I admit, this question is not ideal, but you seem to have it in for this question. The conflict you spell out between parallelism and modification seems entirely non-existent to me.
Strictly, the parallelism is between "
of the Milky Way" and "
of many". Here, we get into an issue that
MGMAT likes to call "
subgroup modifiers." The latter term, "
of many", makes no sense without making clear the larger group.
"
of the Milky Way"//"
of many of the 100 billion other galaxies"
That's the parallelism. Now, as it happens, the second term of the parallelism has modifier, even though the first one doesn't. This is 100% legal, and appears in correct answers in the
GMAT OG.
For example, consider OG13 SC #110 --- here's the OA, choice
(C):
(C) Published in Harlem, the Messenger was owned and edited by two young journalists, A. Philip Randolph, who would later make his reputation as a labor leader, and Chandler Owen.
The two individuals named, A. Philip Randolph and Chandler Owen, are in parallel, and only the first one has modifying clause. There's absolutely no problem with that.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test PrepEducation is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)