Some people contend that the distinction between an extreme sport and

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION



In this question, we deal with two types of parallelism at the same time.
I would start with the easier one, which is a 4-1 split.

• Split #1: ___ OR ____ must be parallel

For this type of parallelism in which we are focused on the last part of the sentence, it may be easier to strip the sentence.

The stripped sentence:
The distinction between ABC and DEF has as much to do with marketing as with the level of danger involved OR how much adrenaline is generated (?).

Whatever is on each side of OR must be parallel.

-- Option A: the level of danger involved or how much adrenaline is generated
Option A incorrectly has a noun on the left side of OR (level) and a pronoun on the right side (how).
The left side of OR is a noun phrase. The right side is a substantive clause,* which acts as a noun but is not identical to a simple noun phrase.
If you want to be conservative, hold this one and compare to C.

-- Option B is a hot mess: level of danger that is involved or the adrenaline amount it generates

Option B does contain two nouns, level of danger and adrenaline amount. They're not structured similarly.
The better phrase is amount of adrenaline.

Option B incorrectly pairs a past participle, involved, and a present tense verb, generates

Option B uses that is with one element and not with the other. That is is unnecessary and cumbersome. The other four answers are better without the phrase.

In option B, what is the antecedent for the pronoun IT? (There is none.)

-- Option D: danger level involved or the amount of adrenaline being generated
The phrase level of danger would be better.
Option D needlessly includes being.
Compare to (C): amount of adrenaline generated is better.

-- Option E: the level of danger involved or the amount of adrenaline it generates
Again, we have a case of The Missing Antecedent. The pronoun it cannot refer to one of the two sports.
The word IT refers to the amount of adrenaline that A sport generates, but we have two.

Eliminate B, D, and E. Compare A to C. (Compare any of the answers to C.) Option C wins.
The constructions on each side of OR are parallel.

(C): the level of danger involved or the amount of adrenaline generated
[noun + preposition + object + past participle adjective] OR [noun + preposition + object + past participle adjective]

The answer is C.

Split #2: Parallelism - WITH

-- As much as is a parallelism marker. In parallel structures, many words can be omitted from the second part.
Most of the time, though, prepositions are not omitted from parallel structures.

The word WITH needs to be repeated

Do not get distracted by the word TO, which is part of the infinitive to do.
The preposition to is different. I will compare with and to.

-- The prompt, stripped a little:
... the distinction ... has as much to do WITH marketing as WITH the level of danger involved or how much adrenaline is generated.

The distinction . . . has as much to do WITH X as [it has to do] WITH Y.

Now compare to D, which does not repeat WITH

. . . the distinction . . . has as much to do with marketing as TO the danger level involved or the amount of adrenaline being generated

The distinction . . . has as much to do with X as [it has to do] TO Y. Ouch.

We need to repeat with.

Eliminate options D and E.
Then analyze the constructions on each side of OR in options A, B, and C.
The parallelism in C is superior.

The answer is C.

COMMENTS

harsha3699 , welcome to SC Butler.

The preposition TO and the TO in the infinitive TO DO are not the same.

This issue can be really hard, but if you strip the sentence and put TO in, as I did above, using TO makes no sense.

I understand that this question is hard to explain.
The question is also important. GMAC, for example, typically does not omit the preposition in similar sentences.

On a different note, when you see the word to, notice what follows it.
If a direct object follows (he went TO the STORE), then you have a "regular" preposition.

If a verb follows the word to, then you have a TO that can be split and paired only with other bare infinitive verbs.

When in doubt, strip and condense the words as much as you can. Insert "to":

As much with X as TO Y?

To give people a way to separate these two kinds of the word "to,"
I call the first kind of to a preposition and the second kind of to an infinitive marker. (They are both prepositions. The second term is just to help distinguish between them.)

I couldn't decide what to do about kudos on this one. I've decided.
Correct answers with good explanations get kudos.
Correct answers with not clear explanations get a smiley face.
Incorrect answers get a smiley face.

For most of you: good effort.


**The whole clause, how much adrenaline is generated is a direct object of the preposition with.
For more on substantive clauses, see the post HERE.