|
|
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.
31 Dec 2015, 08:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
Ok, so I have seen multiple times that reading National Geographic is a good way to improve RC. Nevertheless, I have encountered a sentence that, in my opinion, is not well structured:
Blast fishing, as it’s called, not only destroys large numbers of fish directly—but indirectly as well by killing coral and the rich array of marine animals that depend on it.
the idiom not only/but - not only/but also is not correctly used here.
From what I see, the "but also... indirectly" is understood because of hyphen.
not only destroys large numbers of fish directly
but also destroys large numbers of fish indirectly
This is the first time when I see such a construction. Any expert that can comment on this one?
Here is the source:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... ral-reefs/
Blast fishing, as it’s called, not only destroys large numbers of fish directly—but indirectly as well by killing coral and the rich array of marine animals that depend on it.
the idiom not only/but - not only/but also is not correctly used here.
From what I see, the "but also... indirectly" is understood because of hyphen.
not only destroys large numbers of fish directly
but also destroys large numbers of fish indirectly
This is the first time when I see such a construction. Any expert that can comment on this one?
Here is the source:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... ral-reefs/
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
31 Dec 2015, 16:31
Kudos
Bookmarks
mvictor
Dear mvictor,
I'm happy to respond.
A couple points.
1) National Geographic is a good source to read, but keep in mind that essentially no source with a wide public readership can maintain the rigorous standards of the GMAT SC. I will be blunt about my fellow citizens: if any publication adhered strictly to the GMAT SC standards, the writing would be so advanced that most Americans would have no hope of understanding it, and the publication would not have a wide readership. Even as it is, I would wager that half the American customers of National Geographic just look at the pictures and don't read the text at all! If you are resorting to anything sold on the newsstands for your practice reading, recognize that it necessarily will fall short of GMAT standards. News publications absolutely have to lower their standards to increase their sales: this sad fact may be true elsewhere in the world, but it is eminently true of my fellow Americans. (The GMAT can afford to hold high standards because they have, as it were, a captive audience: folks applying to B-school have to take the GMAT!)
2) The "not only . . . but also" sometimes does appear on the GMAT without the word "also." That word is not 100% essential to the functioning of the idiom. Here, the words "as well" are an acceptable stand-in for "also."
3) As I believe you understand, the sentence also violates what I would call the once outside twice inside rule. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-para ... ce-inside/
4) This particular sentence is quite casual in its construction. It's a flashy line designed to catch the interest of an apathetic and barely literate public. It is not an exemplar of well-spoken writing. Here is the same information in a form that could be the OA of a GMAT SC question:
The practice of "blast fishing" destroys large numbers of fish—not only in the blast itself, but indirectly as well, because it kills coral and the rich array of marine animals that depend on the coral reefs.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
mvictor
Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Last visit: 14 Jul 2021
Posts: 2,118
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 236
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Stanford '20 (WD)
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE:General Management (Transportation)
Products:
31 Dec 2015, 20:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
mikemcgarry
Thanks mikemcgarry for your explanation. It is the first time when I see such a construction, and that's why it made me raise some questions whether the structure is correct.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
