The zoning commission has countered that its consultation process was

Question

The zoning commission has countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and with other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise.
A) has countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings

A) has countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and with other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise

B) has countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise

C) has countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and none of the issued permits ought to come as a surprise

D) countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, with business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as surprises

E) countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise

Official Explanation is  HERE .

mikemcgarry · Accepted Answer

Dear aditya8062 , I got your p.m. and I am happy to help. :-)

Here's the question: The zoning commission has countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and with other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise. A) has countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and with other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise One big problem: the inside/outside rule for parallelism. See: https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-paral ... ce-inside/ It would be correct to say either with R, S, and T or with R, with S, and with T but this answer has with R, S, and with T which is 100% wrong. B) has countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise No obvious problem. Looks good. C) has countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and none of the issued permits ought to come as a surprise Leaving out the parallel that 's is problematic, because it's unclear whether, for example, " it coordinated and participated in ..." is suppose to be something else the zoning commission claimed or an independent parallel fact. Ambiguous = wrong. D) countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, with business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as surprises Sneaky mistake. Almost everything here is good, but " none " is singular, so it doesn't match " surprises ." This is wrong. E) countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise Here, we have a missing " that ", a variant on the inside/outside mistake in (A) . We need a " that " in front of each of the three branches of the parallelism. This is wrong. Thus, the only possibility is (B) . This is a good question. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

aditya8062 · Answer

B it is  :  has countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise

if E would have been :  countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and  that  none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise

then i believe that E would have been OK . i feel that this construction can be presented in present perfect as is done in option B or it can be presentend in simple past as is done in  modified E

cssk · Answer

Choice B is the answer.

B) has countered  that  its consultation process has been exhaustive,  that  it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and  that  none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise

Usage of "that" is parallel to combine the zoning commission's counter statements together.

Also second "with" in the original sentence "meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and  with  other community organizations" is unnecessary.

riskietech · Answer

The zoning commission has countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and with other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise.
A) has countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings

A) has countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and with other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise
 Incorrect: "business empowerment boards" is not parallel to phrases "with leadership councils" and "with other community organizations"

B) has countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise
 Correct: all phrases parallel.

C) has countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and none of the issued permits ought to come as a surprise
 Incorrect: There are two independent clauses joined by comma. Incorrect. the second sentence of must start with "that"

D) countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, with business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as surprises
 Incorrect: again parallelism issue with "other community organizations"

E) countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise
 Incorrect: "that" is missing in last sentence.

pqhai · Answer

The zoning commission has countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and with other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise.
A) has countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings

A) has countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings  with  leadership councils, business-empowerment boards,  and with  other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise
 Wrong.  Parallelism problem:  with X, Y, and with Z

B) has countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise
  Correct.   
- Parallel: ....has countered  that. ....,  that ,......,  and that ..............
- Parallel: .... with X, Y, and Z

C) has countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and none of the issued permits ought to come as a surprise
 Wrong.  Parallel: need the  second "that"  before "it coordinated......." and  the third "that"  before "and none of the............"

D)  countered  that its consultation process has been exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings  with  leadership councils,  with  business-empowerment boards,  and  other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as surprises
 Wrong. 
- Verb tense: simple past "countered" changes meaning.
- Parallel:  with X, with Y, and Z

E)  countered that  its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations,  and  none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise
 Wrong.  
- Verb tense: simple past "countered" changes meaning.
- Need " that " before "none of the issued....."

dinesh86 · Answer

The zoning commission has countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and with other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise.
A) has countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings

A) has countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and with other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise – ‘With’ breaks parallelism in list of three items

B) has countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise - Correct. Parallelism maintained in both lists.

C) has countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and none of the issued permits ought to come as a surprise – omitting THAT in 2nd nd 3rd item of main list change the meaning.

D) countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, with business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as surprises – omitting of ‘With’ in third item of sub-list breaks parallelism.

E) countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise – absence of THAT before third item of main list.

Correct or add if something is wrong or missed.....

scofield1521 · Answer

A) has countered  that  its consultation  process was exhaustive ,  that  it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and with other community organizations, and  that  none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise
  Major 3 are not parallel (that), minor 3 in 2nd sentence are not parallel (with)  
B) has countered  that  its consultation process has been exhaustive,  that  it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and  that  none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise
  All are parallel  
C) has countered  that  its consultation process has been exhaustive,  (that)  it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and  (that)  none of the issued permits ought to come as a surprise
  Major 3 sentence are not parallel (that X, that Y and that Z)  
D)  (has)  countered  that  its consultation process has been exhaustive,  that  it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils,  with  business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and  that  none of the issued permits ought to have come as surprises
  Major 3 sentence are not parallel (that X, that Y and that Z)  
E) countered  that  its consultation process was exhaustive,  that  it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and  (that)  other community organizations, and none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise
  Major 3 sentence are not parallel (that X, that Y and that Z)

JarvisR · Answer

IMO "for" next to "and" is not mandatory here or a decision making point.

As per MGMAT Ron:
===================
there are two kinds of parallel signals: ONE-PART (such as "and", "or", "but"), and TWO-PART (such as "not only ... but also", "both ... and").

when you have PARALLELISM WITH A ONE-PART SIGNAL, the only words that are "locked in" are the ones directly FOLLOWING the signal.
as long as you can find the corresponding structure in the other part, then the parallelism is fine.

examples:
i worked in nevada and florida.
i worked in nevada and in florida.
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forum ... t3562.html
===================
In the given problem bold are the || markers.
Several Pentagon contractor firms are working on a new class of ventilator masks,
not just for emergency and cleanup workers
but to prepare for
outbreaks of dangerous viruses and
still another growing threat:
the accidental releases of nano-particles, [modifying threat]
which are the infinitesimal, engineered fibers that are starting to be used in electronics, food, medicine, and more ..... [Modifying NP]

Note: infinitesimal, engineered fibers is wrong: We need to separate these 2 entries by "and".

For me it was between C and D and I was not sure which one to pick.

Request fraternity to share their inputs.

pacifist85 · Answer

May I ask why A is wrong here? Is it because the word "for" is missing?
Because sometimes we omit words that were used before. E.g. instead of "I went for paraschuting, and for climbing and for swimming" we could say "i went paraschuting, climbing and swimming".

Another question: let'a say that the word "for" did exist in choice A, then would A or D be correct? So, would "which" in A be considered unecessary?

daagh · Answer

Parallelism play  
A. has countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and with other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise----   leaving out ‘with for the second items and using only for first and the third item is unparallel

B. has countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise ---  I think this is the choice with perfect parallelism at all counters.

C. has countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and none of the issued permits ought to come as a surprise ----  ought to come as a surprise—This looks as if this is a prediction for the future rather than for something that occurred earlier.

D. countered that its consultation process has been exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, with business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and that none of the issued permits ought to have come as surprises ----  using ‘with’ just for two of the items and leaving out for the third is unparallel

E. countered that its consultation process was exhaustive, that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations, and none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise— misses out on ‘that’ parallelism for the last item.

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear 282522 , (As much as I love numbers, it feels funny to refer to a human being as a number! :-D

) I'm happy to help! :-)

The answer to your question is yes and no. Yes, we absolutely can structure a sentence so that the parallelism happens "inside" the " that " clause and therefore follows a single word " that ." In other words, the word " that " appears "once outside" the parallelism. We also can repeat the "that" in each branch of the parallelism. These are options I call "once outside" and "twice inside," and I write about the rule here: https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-paral ... ce-inside/ Your sentence is a perfect example of the " to " of an infinitive in the "once outside" pattern. An example with " that " would be: Einstein demonstrated that light is the fastest speed and all the other laws of motion are subordinate to that idea. For a sentence of that length, this structure is 100% clear. And so, is the parallelism in (C) grammatically correct? Yes, absolutely so. BUT---and this is a crucially important "but"!---the GMAT SC are NOT simply a test of grammar. Grammar and logic and rhetoric are all equally important, and the GMAT loves to construct grammatically correct incorrect answers that make logical mistakes or which are rhetorical trainwrecks , because such answer snag the test takers who are focused exclusively on grammar. Yes, (C) is grammatically correct, but as I pointed out, there is a subtle logic problem. Furthermore, while the repeated appearances of " that " is not a grammatical necessity, from a rhetorical point of view, in a longer sentence it is extremely helpful to have each new " that " as a signpost to let us know where we are in the organization of the whole sentence. Gifted writers who write monstrously long sentences such as the one in this problem often use punctuation and signpost words to guide the reader through the sentence. For this reason, in long sentences on the GMAT SC, we almost always see the "that" repeated for each branch of parallelism. Thus, I would say about option (C) grammar = A+ logic = F rhetoric = C- So, yes, it's absolutely grammatically correct and still dead wrong. Once again, the GMAT loves creating incorrect answers of this sort, because the folks narrowly focused on grammar only will always get snagged by such answers. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear 282552, I'm happy to respond. :-)

Both Option (A) and Option (B) , the OA, repeat the " that " for all three clauses, which gives clarity to the sentence. By contrast, option (C) has only one " that " at the beginning, which makes the flow of the sentence harder to follow and introduces potential logical problems. Option (A) differs from options (B) & (C) in the parallelism following the preposition " with :" (A) "... over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and with other community organizations ..." (B) "... over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations ..." (C) "... over 250 meetings with leadership councils, business-empowerment boards, and other community organizations ..." Correct : with P, Q, and R Incorrect : with P, Q, and with R Option (A) makes this mistake with the " with " preposition, but it correctly has a " that " before each clause Option (C) has stretches a single " that " to include all three clauses, but it has the correct " with " structure Option (B) gets everything correct Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

mvictor · Answer

so good to actually see a HIGH quality question...
I started by splitting the sentence into parts:
ZC has countered:
a) that its consultation process has been exhaustive;
b) that it coordinated and participated in over 250 meetings with:
1. leadership councils,
2. business empowerment boards,
3. and other community organizations.
c) that none of the issued permits ought to have come as a surprise.

A. we see the parallelism error in the 1-3 elements. + consultation process was up until the commission HAS countered, thus, it should be present perfect. at least that's what I think.
B. looks good, corrects the both mistakes in A.
C. 2 IC connected with only a comma. better use semicolon. yet, still the parallelism kicks in, which kind of changes the meaning.
D. parallelism error. tense error
E. parallelism error. twice. + tense error.

B for me.

282552 · Answer

Mike another one on the same lines.What would be your pick. I picked C
Several Pentagon contractor firms are working on a new class of ventilator masks, not just for emergency and cleanup workers but to prepare for  outbreaks of dangerous viruses and still another growing threat: the accidental releases of nanoparticles, which are the infinitesimal, engineered fibers  that are starting to be used in electronics, food, medicine, and more.

outbreaks of dangerous viruses and still another growing threat: the accidental releases of nanoparticles, which are the infinitesimal, engineered fibers
 outbreaks of dangerous viruses and still another growing threat: the accidental releases of nanoparticles and the infinitesimal, engineered fibers
 outbreaks of dangerous viruses and still another growing threat of the accidental releases of nanoparticles, the infinitesimal and engineered fibers
 outbreaks of dangerous viruses and for still another growing threat: the accidental releases of nanoparticles, the infinitesimal and engineered fibers
 outbreaks of dangerous viruses and to protect against still another growing threat of the accidental releases of nanoparticles and the infinitesimal and engineered fibers

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear 282552 , My friend, you pasted the question in this thread into a thread concerning a completely different question. Unfortunately, this is not the best practice. Think about it. If somebody else wants to know about what you or I think about this question, how would they know to look for our exchange in that other thread? This thread is the logical place to look for any discussion of this question. Also, when you pasted the question into that thread, you committed the GC faux pas of not citing the source. The source of a Verbal question speaks volumes about its authority and quality. Here is a modified version of this question: Several Pentagon contractor firms are working on a new class of ventilator masks, not just for emergency and cleanup workers but to prepare for outbreaks of dangerous viruses and still another growing threat: the accidental releases of nanoparticles, which are the infinitesimal, engineered fibers that are starting to be used in electronics, food, medicine, and more. (A) still another growing threat: the accidental releases of nanoparticles, which are the infinitesimal, (B) still another growing threat: the accidental releases of nanoparticles and the infinitesimal, (C) still another growing threat of the accidental releases of nanoparticles, the infinitesimal and (D) for still another growing threat: the accidental releases of nanoparticles, the infinitesimal and (E) to protect against still another growing threat of the accidental releases of nanoparticles and the infinitesimal and Usually, Veritas writes good questions, but this is not one of their better offerings. Notice, first of all, I altered the underlined section and answer choices, because all five answer choices had similarities at the beginning & the end that could be omitted for shortened answer choices without the loss of any information. That's just exceptionally poor editing. This is not the best question. Choice (B) changes the meaning to something illogical, so that is out. Choice (C) & (E) are awkward and change the meaning, so they are out. The problem in both of them is that, rather than clearly identify the other " growing threat " with " the accidental releases of nanoparticles ," (C) & (E) suggest that there is " another growing threat of the accidental releases of nanoparticles ," as if we already knew of some of the threats associated with the accidental releases of nanoparticles and now this is telling us one more. That's a huge change in meaning, to something illogical. I think choice (A) is good, and so is choice (D), the OA. I think they would say that the parallelism in (A) is unclear, because admittedly there is ambiguity whether " threat " is the object of " for " or of " of ." That is a particularly poor split, because either way has much the same meaning. I don't know. I find that a very picayune split, not persuasive and satisfying, not at all in the style of the splits on the GMAT SC question. This questions achieves its splits on the basis of small technicality, which is not really in the spirit of GMAT SC questions. Often Veritas questions impress me, but I am less than impressed by this one. That's what I think of this question. My friend, I am more than happy to give my input on other questions, but please find the threads where those questions are already posted, ask your question in those threads, and use the "mention this user" to call my attention to your question. Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

mvictor · Answer

out of all 5, D for me seems the best.
the ellipsis here doesn't work very well...
A. 2 meanings: outbreaks of dangerous viruses and OF another growing threat (meaning 2 outbreaks) vs. to prepare for Outbreaks and FOR another growing threat (so to prepare for 2 things). modifiers - kind of strange modifier on modifier - but still looks correct to me..as both modifiers in the end modify the nouns..and the modifications seems logical..nevertheless.because of the ellipsis..i eliminated this answer.
B. same reason as A. + releases of NP and I - but N=I. so out.
C. same reason as A. 
D - looks good. now we have FOR - so no ambiguity here.
E. growing threat of the accidental releases.. and infinitesimal...nope... the accidental releases -> + changes the meaning I believe from the original one.

chetan2u · Answer

Hi  mikemcgarry ,
 I totally agree with your explanation..
D is superior to A on the PARALLELISM issue..
Also I think it is missing on usage of and..
 which are the infinitesimal, engineered fibers that are starting

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear TheLostBear , I'm happy to respond. :-)

Just scanning the problem, I notice a great deal of changes between the simple past and the present perfect. The zoning commission countered = simple past The zoning commission has countered = present perfect These two have very similar meanings. The difference is in the subtlety of emphases. The use of the simple past implies: action done and over . The use of the present perfect implies: the literal action is in the past, but the effects still linger in a meaningful way . Neither one is "wrong" --- it's simply a difference in emphasis. Because these are so close in meaning, this problem is a bad place to look for verb tense errors. Does this make sense? Mike :-)

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear TheLostBear , I'm happy to respond. :-)

Verb tenses are not a particularly common area of mistake tested on the GMAT. I can think of extremely few official questions in which verb tense mistakes play a major role in the splits, and these are never the deciding split of a question. Subject-verb agreement is far more common, and parallelism is one of the most widely tested concepts on the GMAT SC. I will say, it's hard to "look" for parallelism, only because parallelism can take such a bewildering variety of forms. My friend, it sounds as if you are looking for a recipe or formula for interpreting the GMAT SC, and that is an approach that will not be successful. It is impossible to arrive at GMAT SC purely by learning some mythical complete list of rules. While it's important to learn and study rules, you need to develop intuition. When I read a GMAT SC, before I start I never know what to expect, but as I read the prompt and choices, I begin to notice errors or things that "don't feel right." The best way to develop this intuition is to develop a rigorous habit of reading. See: How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score Does all this make sense? Mike :-)

The zoning commission has countered that its consultation process was

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

The zoning commission has countered that its consultation process was

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards