forming/ to form

[vijayjakhotia]

I was confused with option A. I felt that option A showcased Linking verbs related parallelism. the most extensively used method has been the forming of bricks...

i felt that this option was a valid case for linking verbs related parallelism and hence i chose A. Can someone please throw light on why my approach is wrong?

[RonPurewal]

I was confused with option A. I felt that option A showcased Linking verbs related parallelism. the most extensively used method has been the forming of bricks...

i felt that this option was a valid case for linking verbs related parallelism and hence i chose A. Can someone please throw light on why my approach is wrong?

well, yeah, that much is ok -- but the problem in that choice is that the things that are supposed to be parallel aren't parallel.
the two steps of the process...
1) forming / to form
2) laying / to lay
... must be parallel.

in choice (a), these are not parallel: the first appears as "the forming", and the second appears as "they are laid".

[vijayjakhotia]

Thanks Ron for the explanation. I will focus on the linking verb related parallelism only if there is actual split in the answer options else i will not choose an option just based on Linking verb parallelism.

Thanks
Vijay

[vijayjakhotia]

Hi rx_11,

Your examples don't match what's going on in the sentence and highlight to me why you're confused. To see that let's compare your sample sentences to a pared down version of the original sentence:

Eg1. Jim cleaned the bedroom and wiped the floor-CORRECT
Eg2. Jim cleaned the bedroom, and wiped the floor-INCORRECT

...The most extensively used method has been to form, and to lay

In the problem the comma can appear before the and so long as a full independent clause is formed. In this case, "to form" and "to lay" are objects of "has been" and thus will be part of an independent clause no matter what because one clause ends after "to form" and the ", and" shows us another possible object of "has been."

You can read more about the use of ", and" vs. just "and" in this post: comma-and-vs-and-t11444.html

Either way, I want to point out that the ", and" vs. "and" wasn't a split in play here. Remember, there's no use in "tilting at windmills" in these problems. The GMAT isn't going to put answer choices on the test that are obviously wrong so there isn't a reason to try to look into a problem to find a "more correct" of writing the answer choice. I'm not accusing you of doing so here but just want to remind you as well as everyone else reading this post of that fact :)

Thanks,
Chris

Chris/Ron
I was thinking that X,and Y is valid only when X & Y are independent clauses. I am really confused when u say that each are acting as independent clause because the to infinitives are the objects of the has been and hence forming independent clauses.
So in summary, we can have subject + Verb+ Object of the verb, and another object of the verb -> Is this valid always?

Ron

Can u please answer even the above query?

Thanks
Vijay

[RonPurewal]

Chris/Ron
I was thinking that X,and Y is valid only when X & Y are independent clauses. I am really confused when u say that each are acting as independent clause because the to infinitives are the objects of the has been and hence forming independent clauses.
So in summary, we can have subject + Verb+ Object of the verb, and another object of the verb -> Is this valid always?

in truth, i am also surprised by the placement of the comma before "and" in this sentence. moreover, the sentence is from the official guide**, so i know that gmac (surprisingly) approves of the given punctuation.

remember the following, though:
the gmat doesn't test punctuation!!
there are not going to be answer choices that require you to recognize incorrect punctuation; this concept just isn't tested on the gmat.
by worrying about punctuation, you are just making your job harder -- because you're going to worry about things that you shouldn't worry about (case in point: this problem), and the resultant insights will never help you solve problems.

[alicegmat]

I was confused with option A. I felt that option A showcased Linking verbs related parallelism. the most extensively used method has been the forming of bricks...

i felt that this option was a valid case for linking verbs related parallelism and hence i chose A. Can someone please throw light on why my approach is wrong?

In my opinion the linking verb parallelism works even in the OA - D. Infinitives to form and to lay act as nouns here.

[RonPurewal]

I was confused with option A. I felt that option A showcased Linking verbs related parallelism. the most extensively used method has been the forming of bricks...

i felt that this option was a valid case for linking verbs related parallelism and hence i chose A. Can someone please throw light on why my approach is wrong?

In my opinion the linking verb parallelism works even in the OA - D. Infinitives to form and to lay act as nouns here.

the parallelism that's at issue in those two choices is not "linking verb parallelism"; it's the parallelism between the two steps of the method.
in short, the forms of "lay" and "form" must match.

[343877833]

Hi rx_11,

Your examples don't match what's going on in the sentence and highlight to me why you're confused. To see that let's compare your sample sentences to a pared down version of the original sentence:

Eg1. Jim cleaned the bedroom and wiped the floor-CORRECT
Eg2. Jim cleaned the bedroom, and wiped the floor-INCORRECT

...The most extensively used method has been to form, and to lay

In the problem the comma can appear before the and so long as a full independent clause is formed. In this case, "to form" and "to lay" are objects of "has been" and thus will be part of an independent clause no matter what because one clause ends after "to form" and the ", and" shows us another possible object of "has been."

You can read more about the use of ", and" vs. just "and" in this post: comma-and-vs-and-t11444.html

Either way, I want to point out that the ", and" vs. "and" wasn't a split in play here. Remember, there's no use in "tilting at windmills" in these problems. The GMAT isn't going to put answer choices on the test that are obviously wrong so there isn't a reason to try to look into a problem to find a "more correct" of writing the answer choice. I'm not accusing you of doing so here but just want to remind you as well as everyone else reading this post of that fact :)

Thanks,
Chris

thanks for your answer, but i am still confused about independent clause after ", and". I cannot accept that "to lay" after ", and " is a independent clause because it's not a complete sentence. Can you give some information more detail about this question on independent clause after ", and"

[jp.jprasanna]

Hi rx_11,

Your examples don't match what's going on in the sentence and highlight to me why you're confused. To see that let's compare your sample sentences to a pared down version of the original sentence:

Eg1. Jim cleaned the bedroom and wiped the floor-CORRECT
Eg2. Jim cleaned the bedroom, and wiped the floor-INCORRECT

...The most extensively used method has been to form, and to lay

In the problem the comma can appear before the and so long as a full independent clause is formed. In this case, "to form" and "to lay" are objects of "has been" and thus will be part of an independent clause no matter what because one clause ends after "to form" and the ", and" shows us another possible object of "has been."

You can read more about the use of ", and" vs. just "and" in this post: comma-and-vs-and-t11444.html

Either way, I want to point out that the ", and" vs. "and" wasn't a split in play here. Remember, there's no use in "tilting at windmills" in these problems. The GMAT isn't going to put answer choices on the test that are obviously wrong so there isn't a reason to try to look into a problem to find a "more correct" of writing the answer choice. I'm not accusing you of doing so here but just want to remind you as well as everyone else reading this post of that fact :)

Thanks,
Chris

thanks for your answer, but i am still confused about independent clause after ", and". I cannot accept that "to lay" after ", and " is a independent clause because it's not a complete sentence. Can you give some information more detail about this question on independent clause after ", and"

Instructors please correct me If Im wrong.

In this construction the linking verb applies to both part of the parallelism i.e if the 2 nd part doesn't contain a complete verb form then the "helping verb" applies to the 2 nd part

For example :

jake has worked here for many years and won many awards

here "has" the linking verb applies to the 2nd part
Full version would be

jake has worked here for many years and has won many awards

One more from Real GMAT question

According to some analysts, the gains in the stock market reflect growing confidence that the economy will avoid the recession that many had feared earlier in the year and instead come in for a "soft landing"

here in the 2nd part "come" alone cannot act as a verb and the 1st part has a helping verb too "will" hence the "will" is understood / implied in the 2nd part

According to some analysts, the gains in the stock market reflect growing confidence that the economy will avoid the recession that many had feared earlier in the year and instead WILL come in for a "soft landing"

But if we have a complete verb form in the 2nd part the helping verb does not apply

The company has announced its profits and is in state of bankruptcy

"has" does not apply to the 2 nd part

The company reduced itself into smaller Units and has been working on a plan to develop more such units.

"has" does not apply to the 1st part

Similarly for the question under discussion -

The method has been "to form" and has been "to lay"

Instructors please correct me If WRONG.

Cheers

[RonPurewal]

jp, yes, all of that seems very accurate. you have a deep understanding of this aspect of parallelism.
nicely done.

[343877833]

Thanks,
Chris[/quote]

thanks for your answer, but i am still confused about independent clause after ", and". I cannot accept that "to lay" after ", and " is a independent clause because it's not a complete sentence. Can you give some information more detail about this question on independent clause after ", and"[/quote]

Instructors please correct me If Im wrong.

In this construction the linking verb applies to both part of the parallelism i.e if the 2 nd part doesn't contain a complete verb form then the "helping verb" applies to the 2 nd part

For example :

jake has worked here for many years and won many awards

here "has" the linking verb applies to the 2nd part
Full version would be

jake has worked here for many years and has won many awards

One more from Real GMAT question

According to some analysts, the gains in the stock market reflect growing confidence that the economy will avoid the recession that many had feared earlier in the year and instead come in for a "soft landing"

here in the 2nd part "come" alone cannot act as a verb and the 1st part has a helping verb too "will" hence the "will" is understood / implied in the 2nd part

According to some analysts, the gains in the stock market reflect growing confidence that the economy will avoid the recession that many had feared earlier in the year and instead WILL come in for a "soft landing"

But if we have a complete verb form in the 2nd part the helping verb does not apply

The company has announced its profits and is in state of bankruptcy

"has" does not apply to the 2 nd part

The company reduced itself into smaller Units and has been working on a plan to develop more such units.

"has" does not apply to the 1st part

Similarly for the question under discussion -

The method has been "to form" and has been "to lay"

Instructors please correct me If WRONG.

Cheers[/quote]
jp, thanks for your example. but i ask you for one key point. as you represent :
According to some analysts, the gains in the stock market reflect growing confidence that the economy will avoid the recession that many had feared earlier in the year and instead come in for a "soft landing"
how about the "come" parallel with "reflect" .

[jp.jprasanna]

Hi - This is how I see it...

READ the sentence, and look for two things:
- look for the general meaning of the sentence
- look for PARALLELISM

So here meaning dictates that "come" has to parallel with "avoid" and not with "reflect"

What came in for a soft landing - gains or economy?

Sentence goes like this -

According to some analysts, the gains in the stock market reflect growing confidence that A will happen and instead B happened - so A and B have to be parallel and B cannot be parallel with the main clause "the gains in the stock.....that"


hth

Cheers

[tim]

thanks; let us know if there are any further questions on this one..

[zhongshanlh]

actually , i got a question about option E.
E.that bricks were formed from mud or clay, which, after some preliminary air drying or sundrying, were laid

in E,the reference of which is (mud or) clay,but if we notice the to be following which, we see "were",however, in this sentence , mud or clay is uncountable ,so the to be should be was rather than were.

so, please clarify me if I was thinking wrong.

[jlucero]

actually , i got a question about option E.
E.that bricks were formed from mud or clay, which, after some preliminary air drying or sundrying, were laid

in E,the reference of which is (mud or) clay,but if we notice the to be following which, we see "were",however, in this sentence , mud or clay is uncountable ,so the to be should be was rather than were.

so, please clarify me if I was thinking wrong.

You are correct that it should be "was" instead of "were" but the reason is that we are referring to mud or clay, and with an "or" statement, we need to refer to the last element (clay) to determine whether to use was/were. Clay is singular, which is why we need to use "was".

The questions probably uses "were" to try to trick students into thinking that the clause still refers to bricks.