GMATprep SC question

[RonPurewal]

also please give me a structure in which "and which" can become parallel .honestly i feel that this structure can be parallel ,though that construction will be some thing like below structure

Here are three possibilities.

1/
Both "which"s have the same role, but the two parts are REALLY LONG"”so the second "which" is included for clarity.
The old gates, which have protected the property from vandals and thieves for over eighty-five years and which have been lovingly decorated by three generations of the family's children, will be removed tomorrow.

2/
You have two "which"s, but they play different grammatical roles, so you MUST have both of them.
Vegetables, which my children hate but which will help them grow strong bodies, are a part of every meal we eat.
Here, the first "which" is an object (of the verb "hate"), but the second "which" is a subject. So, they are effectively different words"”the first is like "them", while the second is like "they". So we need both.

3/
"Which" is parallel to something else.
These mythical creatures, in which people have believed for centuries but which have never actually appeared, are called "snipes".

[RonPurewal]

Ron
you have said that "and which.." is not just wrong but is also "not preferred" .can you please elaborate this

I didn't say that.

Another poster said it was just "not preferred". My response was, "No, it's actually wrong."

I.e.

1/
"Not preferred" is an understatement; the construction is, in fact, incorrect.

2/
It's dangerous to think in terms such as "not preferred", because the GMAT doesn't test vague issues of style or "preference""”it tests things that are objectively right or wrong.

[lindaliu9273]

Hi Ron，

You said in D/E, illogical to place 'neutrinos' AFTER 'these ... particles' .

Is it correct that "this/that/these/those" HAVE to locate after the antecedent?

And "it/they/them/their/one" can locate before the antecedent?

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron，

You said in D/E, illogical to place 'neutrinos' AFTER 'these ... particles' .

Is it correct that "this/that/these/those" HAVE to locate after the antecedent?

Yes; otherwise they wouldn't refer to anything.

[lindaliu9273]

Thank you so much!

[RonPurewal]

Thank you so much!

You're welcome.

[gmatkiller_24]

based on sentence meaning to eliminate D,E

in the former part of the sentence, what the sentence tried to convey was that sth bombarded earth.

in the latter part, there is a contrast " fortunately", successfully conveyed by the correct choice that "those stuff are harmless"

but look at what D,E tried to convey in their core structures,

these particles are neutrinos ( that has nothing to do with fortunately)

Is my analysis valid? please clarify, thanks!

[RonPurewal]

exactly.

[HemantR606]

is this really a gmatprep question?
(c)
bad parallelism: are harmless elementary particles... and which interact...

Hi Ron,

This is a very old quote, at the beginning of the thread.

To me, in (C), the parallelism seems to be between 'produced....' and 'which...', both noun modifiers modifying 'particles'. For clarity, I am putting down the sentence

"...neutrinos are harmless elementary particles produced in nuclear reactions and which interact very weakly with matter"

-particles produced in nuclear reaction
-particles which interact very weakly....


Is the use of 'which' in this case still outright wrong?
or
Does (A) win over (C) after "BEAUTY CONTEST" between the two parallelisms?

Thanks a ton in advance.

[RonPurewal]

Does (A) win over (C) after "BEAUTY CONTEST" between the two parallelisms?

yes. note that, in ths particular beauty contest, the verdict is absolutely obvious—there is not even a tiny shadow of a doubt about which choice is the winner.

[RonPurewal]

also note that, in the standard formal english used on the GMAT (and in most formal publications in the USA),
• 'which' follows a comma and DOES NOT narrow the meaning of the previous word.
• 'that' DOES NOT follow a comma (unless the comma belongs to an unrelated construction), and DOES narrow the meaning of the previous word.

e.g.,
You should eat vegetables, which contain fiber.
--> according to this sentence, ALL vegetables contain fiber.

You should eat vegetables that contain fiber.
--> according to this sentence, NOT ALL vegetables contain fiber. the sentence is advising you only to eat the ones that do. (as for whether you should eat the other ones, there is no counsel either way.)

in UK english, 'which' is often substituted for 'that' in sentences like the second one. (the punctuation does not change.) GMAC NEVER uses 'which' in this way.

you will never be REQUIRED to draw this distinction on the exam. but, if you know about it, you can also eliminate C, because it's clear that 'that...' is the right choice here (i.e., we are not describing ALL 'harmless elementary particles').

[christopherw340]

also please give me a structure in which "and which" can become parallel .honestly i feel that this structure can be parallel ,though that construction will be some thing like below structure

Here are three possibilities.

1/
Both "which"s have the same role, but the two parts are REALLY LONG"”so the second "which" is included for clarity.
The old gates, which have protected the property from vandals and thieves for over eighty-five years and which have been lovingly decorated by three generations of the family's children, will be removed tomorrow.

2/
You have two "which"s, but they play different grammatical roles, so you MUST have both of them.
Vegetables, which my children hate but which will help them grow strong bodies, are a part of every meal we eat.
Here, the first "which" is an object (of the verb "hate"), but the second "which" is a subject. So, they are effectively different words"”the first is like "them", while the second is like "they". So we need both.

3/
"Which" is parallel to something else.
These mythical creatures, in which people have believed for centuries but which have never actually appeared, are called "snipes".

Sorry to revive an old post but I was reading these examples and had a quick question about example 1 you provided, Ron.
In the "old gates/ vandals and thieves" example would the sentence be correct if the second "and which" was replaced with just "and"?

It seems like the second "which" breaks the parallelism: "old gates have protected...AND have been decorated" to me seems correct and "old gates have protected...AND which have been decorated" seems incorrect

[RonPurewal]

Sorry to revive an old post but I was reading these examples and had a quick question about example 1 you provided, Ron.
In the "old gates/ vandals and thieves" example would the sentence be correct if the second "and which" was replaced with just "and"?

the resulting sentence wouldn't technically be wrong, but it would be bad writing.
because the parallel pieces are individually so long, omitting the second 'which' results in a sentence that's practically impossible to understand in one read-through.
the second 'which' re-orients the reader, making the overall parallelism easier to understand in one pass.

since this distinction is solely a matter of style (good writing vs. bad writing), rather than a matter of right and wrong, it is a non-issue on the gmat.

[RonPurewal]

It seems like the second "which" breaks the parallelism: "old gates have protected...AND have been decorated" to me seems correct and "old gates have protected...AND which have been decorated" seems incorrect

i'm confused here.

the sentence you quoted is
The old gates, which xxxxx and which yyyyy...
in this sentence, it should be clear that the two 'which' modifiers are parallel.

your questions seem to be based on
The old gates xxxxx and...
...but there is no sentence that looks like that. where are you getting that?

[JbhB682]

Hi Experts - with option A , what is "THAT" referring to - neutrino's or elementary particles ?

I thought "THAT" referred to elementary particles and subsequently eliminated option A

My Reasoning : it cannot be elementary particles that are produced in nuclear reactions. It cannot be elementary particles that interact weakly with matter

It is the neutrino's specifically that are produced in nuclear reactions. It is the neutrino's that interact weakly with matter.

Hence i eliminated A

Where is the gap in my logic ?