guenthermat
I don't understand why
whether Earth would grow warmer is parallel to
to what extent:
>
whether Earth would grow warmer is a dependant clause with a conjunction, a subject and a verb
>
to what extent is is a prepositional phrase with a preposition and a noun
Moreover, the root
Discussion.... has focused on...a)
...whether Earth would grow warmer works
b)
...to what extent doesn't work
Thus, I'd conclude that the the Earth part and the extent part aren't parallel.
Any explanations? Thank you!
Dear
guenthermat,
I'm happy to respond.
First of all, remember that parallelism is NOT a grammatical structure. Parallelism is a
logical structure, and any matching pattern in the grammar serves only to reflect the underlying logic. Thus, structures that don't appears similar can still be parallel if they are logical equivalents.
The two items in parallel here are
substantive clauses, a.k.a noun clauses. A substantive clause one kind of dependent clause, and it always takes a noun-role in a sentence (subject, direct object, object of preposition). Both of these clauses are acting as nouns and objects of the verb "
depend on."
1)
whether Earth would grow warmer = a straightforward substantive clause
2)
to what extent - this is tricky for a couple reasons. First of all, in the second branch of parallelism, a writer is always allowed to omit words that were present in the first branch. See:
Dropping Common Words in Parallel on the GMATThis is always a confusing point for non-native speakers in particular. English is a difficult language and it's hard enough to understand all the words that are present, but now we also have to figure out the words that are missing!! With those repeated words, the full version would be:
to what extent [
the Earth would grow warmer]
The entire sentence would be long and repetitive if all those words that appears in the first branch of the parallelism were repeated in the second. That's precisely why sophisticated writers, such as the author of this sentence, chose to drop repeated words: omitting the words creates sleeker, more elegant sentences.
Also, and this is another tricky point: when a dependent clause (such as a substantive clause or a relative clause) begins as a preposition, it is as if the preposition is "inside" the clause. Thus, this second substantive clause is acting as a noun parallel to the first one, and while it appears inside a preposition, it is as if that preposition were inside of it.
All of this is very sophisticated, but this is why (C) is 100% correct and why it contains flawlessly constructed parallelism.
Does all this make sense?
Mike