Posting my own analysis, so I can come back to this if need be. Also, critiques are welcome.The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated that the world’s capital markets are
integrated more closely than never before and events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously.
A) integrated more closely than never before andSentence structure:--(main)--> The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated
....--(subordinate)--> that the world’s capital markets are integrated more closely
........--(subordinate)--> than [they have] never [been] before
--(coordinate)--> and events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously
Why this answer is wrong:"than never before" is the wrong idiom.
The "and events" clause is conjoined incorrectly as a coordinate clause rather than as a subordinate clause. This isn't grammatically incorrect, but it's not clear how or why these two clauses are related to each other.
The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated ... and events in one part of the global village... In my opinion, lack of parallelism in itself does not make this one wrong. However, without the "that" the "and events" clause gets conjoined to the wrong clause. So, the lack of parallelism indirectly leads to this being incorrect.
B) closely integrated more than ever before soSentence structure:--(main)--> The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated
....--(subordinate)--> that the world’s capital markets are closely integrated more
........--(subordinate)--> than [they have] ever [been] before
--(coordinate)--> so events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously
Why this answer is wrong:The first reason for why I think this answer is incorrect is due to the use of "more".
the world’s capital markets are closely integrated more... This clause is a little awkward, but I think grammatically it's fine. The bigger issue with this clause is that "more" modifies "integrated" rather than "closely". Having "more" modify "integrated" is an issue because it's not as clear as when "more" modifies "closely". When "more" modifies "integrated" it could mean that there are more connections between capital markets or that the existing connections between capital markets are more closely connected. If "more" modifies "closely", it's clear that the existing connections between capital markets are more closely connected, which seems to agree with the clause
events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously.
The second reason for why I think this answer is incorrect is due to the "so events" clause. The "so events" clause is joined to the main clause by a coordinate conjunction. Thus, the sentence is equivalent to saying:
Because the financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated that the world’s capital markets are more closely integrated, events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously. We have a cause and effect, but we have the wrong cause.
TGC 's post above has a better analysis for this than I have.
C) more closely integrated as never before whileSentence structure:--(main)--> The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated
....--(subordinate)--> that the world’s capital markets are more closely integrated
........--(subordinate)--> as [they have] never [been] before
............--(subordinate)--> while events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously
Why this answer is wrong:"as never before" is the wrong idiom.
The "while events" clause is conjoined to the wrong superordinate clause. It's hard to say where this clause should be joined. We're trying to show cause and effect, but I don't think this subordinate clause can be joined anywhere in this sentence that will help us achieve that result. (More on this below [1])
"while" would not be the right conjunction. Instead, we are probably looking for a conjunction that shows cause and effect. But this doesn't really matter since the clause itself is incorrect as mentioned above.
D) more closely integrated than ever before and thatSentence structure:--(main)--> The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated
....--(subordinate)--> that the world’s capital markets are more closely integrated
........--(subordinate)--> than [they have] ever [been] before
....--(subordinate)--> and that events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously
Why this answer is correct:I, like many others, wish that we could somehow show cause and effect in this sentence. And unfortunately, this sentence does not do that. However, despite not showing cause and effect, this sentence is grammatically correct and coherent. It's the only answer that can claim to do this.
In my opinion, I don't think the lack of parallelism in the other answers makes them wrong. And conversely, I don't think that the parallelism here is what makes this one right. Rather, I think the parallelism is a means to an end. The parallelism functions to join the "and events" clause to the main clause (the "The financial crash" clause) as a subordinate. Having the "and events" clause conjoined as a subordinate of the main clause is the only sentence structure that makes sense out of all of the listed answers.
E) more than ever before closely integrated asSentence structure:--(main)--> The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated
....--(subordinate)--> that the world’s capital markets are more
........--(subordinate)--> than [they have] ever [been] before closely integrated
............--(subordinate)--> as events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously
Why this answer is wrong:The placement of "more than ever before" makes this sentence grammatically incorrect. The clause "that the world’s capital markets are more" is incomplete. Maybe this could be fixed with some added commas.
The "as events" clause is conjoined to the wrong superordinate clause. It's hard to say where this clause should be joined. We're trying to show cause and effect, but I don't think this subordinate clause can be joined anywhere in this sentence that will help us achieve that result. (More on this below [1])
"as" would not be the right conjunction. Instead, we are probably looking for a conjunction that shows cause and effect. But this doesn't really matter since the clause itself is incorrect as mentioned above.
--- Footnotes ---
1.
I, like many others, was looking for an option that would show cause and effect. Unfortunately, the only answer that is grammatically correct, uses the correct idioms, and is coherent is option B. The best sentence I could come up with to show cause-and-effect was something like the following:
The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated that the world’s capital markets are more closely integrated than ever before and that because they are so closely integrated, events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously.Sorry for the long post, but I didn't want to forget my analysis. Also, as mentioned above, feedback and debate are welcome.