Let us face the issue of parallelism squarely. In theory we indeed accept those that are structurally and logically identical as parallel.
Ex: He wants ‘
to’ drink and ‘
to’ dance. Here the infinitive ‘to’ is used in both arms
We also may say: He wants to drink and dance. Here the 'to' is elliptical in the second arm. This is perfectly acceptable
Ex. 2. He cried ‘
that’ the horse flung him and ‘
that’ it dumped him in the pit.
Compare this to
He cried
that the horse flung him and
dumped him in the pit.
Do you think the second version is un//?
Example 3.
The captain cautioned the soldiers
that they should sleep well, that they should eat well and
that they should drink well before they make the final ambush on the enemy -- ‘This is parallel though too wordy.
The captain cautioned the soldiers that they should sleep well,
eat well and
drink well before they make the final ambush on the enemy -- This is also perfectly parallel and even more elegant; In the process we have dropped so many repeated words . Isn’t this a better version? In parallelism, structure is subservient to logic, If I may say so. For the sake of concision, we often do drop some words such as ‘
that’ and rightly so.
But I also do not deny that GMAT might reject a case for not repeating the connector word ‘
that’ , but I just don’t remember one handily, since I don’t maintain an archive.