OFFICIAL EXPLANATIONProject SC Butler: Sentence Correction (SC1)
THE PROMPTQuote:
Botanists have long wondered how certain plants
can not only thrive in harsh conditions – such as in the searing heat of a desert or the bitter cold of the upper reaches of the Alps – but also wither away as soon as they are shifted to a more agreeable environment, such as in the temperate regions.
• The sentence, stripped:Botanists have long wondered how certain plants
can not only thrive in harsh conditions . . . but also wither away as soon as they are shifted to a more agreeable environment.
• Meaning?→ Your alarm bells should have gone off: the prompt does not display proper contrast.
→ the
not only . . .but also is used incorrectly
This sentence is setting up a contrast between the behavior of some plants in two situations, this way:
Botanists have long wondered how certain plants can thrive in harsh conditions but wither away in agreeable environments.• Not Only X But Also YThis idiom is not used to show stark contrast but rather to convey two related facts or pieces of information.
The first fact is usually "normal" or expected. The second is usually surprising or unexpected.
→
She is not only driven but also compassionate.Sometimes both pieces of information are surprising, though the second is more surprising than the first.
→
She is not only a fierce soldier but also a compassionate enemy.Sometimes both facts are similar.
→
The Olympic slalom skier not only won gold but also set a world record.THE OPTIONS Quote:
A) can
not only thrive in harsh conditions – such as in the searing heat of a desert or the bitter cold of the upper reaches of the Alps –
but also wither
•
not only . . . but also is not correct
→ That construction is not appropriate in this sentence.
Scientists would not wonder about a plant that could survive in both harsh and agreeable situations.
Scientists would view such a plant as adaptable or resilient—the thing can live anywhere.
No, the logical issue here is that some plants can withstand horrible conditions but cannot withstand tolerable conditions.
Option A is a bit nonsensical.
It implies that some plants have the ability to survive in harsh conditions and the ability to perish in hospitable conditons.
Wrong and illogical meaning.
ELIMINATE A
B) can not only thrive in harsh conditions – for example, in the searing heat of a desert or the bitter cold of the upper reaches of the Alps – but they also wither•
not only . . . but also in this option is incorrect for the same reasons listed under option A
• even if the idiomatic pair (a "correlative conjunction") were logical, the construction is not parallel
→
can not only thrive and
but they also wither are not parallel.
The first construction is a verb phrase. The second is a dependent clause.
ELIMINATE B
Quote:
C)
thriving in harsh conditions – such as in the searing heat of a desert or the bitter cold of the upper reaches of the Alps – but they wither
• the first clause does not contain a verb.
→
thriving is not a working verb
ELIMINATE C
Quote:
D) can thrive
not only in harsh conditions – namely in the searing heat of a desert or the bitter cold of the upper reaches of the Alps – but also
wither• Like options A and B, option D incorrectly uses
not only . . . but also• Even if its use were correct, the idiom's construction is not parallel
→
not only in harsh conditions and
but also wither are not parallel
→
not only is followed a prepositional phrase, whereas
but also is followed by a verb
ELIMINATE D
Quote:
E) can thrive in harsh conditions – such as in the searing heat of a desert or the bitter cold of the upper reaches of the Alps – but wither
• Boom. Correct.
• The word "but" sets up the necessary contrast.
→ On one hand, some plants can thrive in harsh conditions, but on the other hand, those same plants cannot thrive in hospitable conditions
KEEP
The answer is E.COMMENTSBhav72 , welcome to SC Butler.
This question is hard in part because the lack of proper contrast is subtle.
In addition, parallelism errors exist. They are time-consuming distractions; if you understand that
not only . . . but also creates faulty logic, then whether the pair's construction is parallel doesn't matter.
Kudos to all for having the courage to post.
Taking risks is a good thing.
The explanations in the correct answers are good—nicely done.