Parallelism-II

[sonu_gmat]

Black spots are visible as dark spots on the surface of the moon but have never been sighted on the moon's poles.

How adjective 'visible' is complement and parallel to past participle 'sighted'?

X are roots of a big tree and extend for more than 50 acres.

Is this construction correct? i.e. Can one subject have compound sentence like this?

X is good and doing well.
I guess this is wrong parallelism. Since 'is' in the first is 'be' verb and in the second auxiliary. Please explain.

[RonPurewal]

hi -

this is the GMATPREP SOFTWARE folder.

two options for posting things like this:

(1)
IF THESE PROBLEMS ARE FROM THE GMATPREP SOFTWARE:
post them IN THEIR ENTIRETY (with ALL answer choices, even the ones you don't have any problems with).
post ONE QUESTION PER THREAD.
then ask your questions.

(2)
IF THESE PROBLEMS ARE FROM THE OFFICIAL GUIDE:
* you CANNOT post these problems, or even fragments of these problems.
* if you have official guide problems, then:
- make up a SIMILAR problem (i.e., one that uses much the same construction, but with different substantive words such as nouns and verbs)
- post that problem IN THE GENERAL VERBAL FOLDER.

thank you.

[RonPurewal]

for some background, read my post on the following thread:
post25465.html#p25465

this thread will help you better understand what i'm talking about in the following.

--

Black spots are visible as dark spots on the surface of the moon but have never been sighted on the moon's poles.

note that parallel constructions don't necessarily have to be in the same tense. if context dictates that the tenses should be different, then the tenses should be different.
in this sentence, the first half states a condition that is currently true (are visible); therefore, that condition should be stated in the present tense, as should all other such conditions. the second half, though, states that something has not yet occurred; statements like this should occur in the present perfect.
you can't wrangle these two constructions into the same tense; context dictates that the tenses must be different. you have to go with that.

therefore, the best thing you can do is just make sure that the 2 parts are as parallel as possible.
both of these start with verbs, so you're good.

here's another standard you can use here:
TAKEAWAY:
if you have a parallel construction involving "and", "but", "or", or "yet", then the SENTENCE MUST MAKE SENSE WITH EACH OF THE TWO PARTS USED INDIVIDUALLY.

here's what we have here:
Black spots are visible as dark spots on the surface of the moon but have never been sighted on the moon's poles.

let's test each of the parallel parts individually:
Black spots are visible as dark spots on the surface of the moon
Black spots have never been sighted on the moon's poles
these both work.
all good.

How adjective 'visible' is complement and parallel to past participle 'sighted'?

see above; parallelism doesn't have to be this exact.
you have to make the construction as parallel as possible without violating the context and logic of the sentence.

X are roots of a big tree and extend for more than 50 acres.

Is this construction correct? i.e. Can one subject have compound sentence like this?

yeah, this is fine.

of course you can have a construction with one subject and two or more actions, connected by "and". it's one of the most common parallel constructions in the entire english language.
they packed their bags and went home.

X is good and doing well.
I guess this is wrong parallelism. Since 'is' in the first is 'be' verb and in the second auxiliary. Please explain.

you are right; this sentence is incorrect.

here's the simple explanation (see the link above for what i mean by "locked in", if you haven't figured it out):
the words "doing well" are locked in, since they appear after the signal word "and". therefore, you need a complement to them on the left-hand side - i.e., you should have something else that starts with a participle. since you don't have that, this is not parallel construction.

you could fix this by adding another "is":
X is good and is doing well.

[sonu_gmat]

Ron,
Thanks a lot for your explanation. I've one more doubt related to parallelism.

X announced that its revenue declined last year and that its sales would improve next year.

X ordered that productivity be increased and (that) efficiency (be) published.

In the first, to make announcement clear 'that' must be repeated after 'and' whereas in the second 'that' after 'and' is understood. I completely rephrased the problem. Can you please explain this. In simple words when we need to repeat 'that' after 'and'.

[RonPurewal]

in both of your examples, the second "that" is optional.

here's why:
if the sentence is AMBIGUOUS WITHOUT THE SECOND "THAT",
OR
if there is a TWO-PART PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION THAT REQUIRES THE SECOND "THAT".
then you NEED the second "that".

otherwise it's optional.

X announced that its revenue declined last year and that its sales would improve next year.

you don't need both instances of "that", because there is no ambiguity if you say just
X announced that its revenue declined last year and its sales would improve next year.
in this case, the "would" clause can't stand by itself; the tense shift wouldn't make sense.

here are 2 ways in which we could alter this sentence so that it REQUIRES the second "that":

(1) X announced that its revenue declined last year but that its sales improved last year.

if you omit the second "that", then a second meaning is possible: namely, the company announced that its revenue declined last year, but it is a fact that the sales improved.
either this or the original meaning would then be possible.
this is not an issue in your original version, because the tense shift makes this 2nd type of interpretation impossible even if you do omit the second "that".

(2) X announced both that its revenue declined last year and that its sales would improve next year.
here, the two-part construction "both ... and" demands that the words FOLLOWING "both" and the words FOLLOWING "and" be parallel. thus, you need "that" in both of them.

X ordered that productivity be increased and (that) efficiency (be) published.

again, there is no ambiguity even upon omitting the second "that", so the second "that" is optional.
(here this is easier to see than usual; the second part can't be a standalone clause, as "be" isn't a verb by itself)

this sentence doesn't make a lot of sense ("efficiency" isn't something you can "publish"), but we'll stick to grammatical issues here.

[NIKESH_PAHUJA]

RON,

In the last sentence, can we remove be or can not we ?


X ordered that productivity be increased and efficiency (be) published............is this correct ?

OR

X ordered that productivity be increased and efficiency published......is correct ?

in both of your examples, the second "that" is optional.

here's why:
if the sentence is AMBIGUOUS WITHOUT THE SECOND "THAT",
OR
if there is a TWO-PART PARALLEL CONSTRUCTION THAT REQUIRES THE SECOND "THAT".
then you NEED the second "that".

otherwise it's optional.

X announced that its revenue declined last year and that its sales would improve next year.

you don't need both instances of "that", because there is no ambiguity if you say just
X announced that its revenue declined last year and its sales would improve next year.
in this case, the "would" clause can't stand by itself; the tense shift wouldn't make sense.

here are 2 ways in which we could alter this sentence so that it REQUIRES the second "that":

(1) X announced that its revenue declined last year but that its sales improved last year.

if you omit the second "that", then a second meaning is possible: namely, the company announced that its revenue declined last year, but it is a fact that the sales improved.
either this or the original meaning would then be possible.
this is not an issue in your original version, because the tense shift makes this 2nd type of interpretation impossible even if you do omit the second "that".

(2) X announced both that its revenue declined last year and that its sales would improve next year.
here, the two-part construction "both ... and" demands that the words FOLLOWING "both" and the words FOLLOWING "and" be parallel. thus, you need "that" in both of them.

X ordered that productivity be increased and (that) efficiency (be) published.

again, there is no ambiguity even upon omitting the second "that", so the second "that" is optional.
(here this is easier to see than usual; the second part can't be a standalone clause, as "be" isn't a verb by itself)

this sentence doesn't make a lot of sense ("efficiency" isn't something you can "publish"), but we'll stick to grammatical issues here.

[RonPurewal]

RON,

In the last sentence, can we remove be or can not we ?


X ordered that productivity be increased and efficiency (be) published............is this correct ?

OR

X ordered that productivity be increased and efficiency published......is correct ?

the first is definitely correct.
i'm pretty sure that the second is also correct, although this is one of those subjective style issues on which the gmat people could possible go either way.

have you seen any official problems that can serve as a precedent either way?