Test: Parallelism- 2 - GMAT MCQ

The list of creators, "by a professional writer, a blogger, and by individual users" violates the principle of parallelism in two ways. First, while "a professional writer" and "a blogger" are singular, the third element in the list, "individual users," is plural. Second, the word "by" introduces the first and third elements in the list ("by a
professional writer . . . by individual users") but not the second element in the list ("a blogger"). To create a parallel sentence, the word "by" should introduce the entire list and should not be repeated. In addition to the parallelism problem, the subject of the underlined portion is the singular "market" which does not agree with the plural verb
phrase "are expanding."
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice fails to resolve the subject-verb agreement issue, as the singular "market" does not agree with the plural verb phrase "are expanding." In addition, this choice fails to maintain parallel structure because the word "by" introduces the first and third elements in the list of creators ("by professional writers . . . by individual users") but not the second element ("bloggers"). To create a parallel sentence, the word "by" should introduce the entire list and should not be repeated.
(C) This choice has proper subject-verb agreement since the singular "market" agrees with the singular verb phrase "is expanding." However, the list of 3 types of creators is not written in parallel form. While "a professional writer" and "a blogger" are singular, the third element in the list, "individual users," is plural.
(D) The phrase "created by professional writers, bloggers, and individual users" lists elements in parallel form. However, this choice fails to resolve the subject-verb agreement issue, as the singular "market" does not agree with the plural verb phrase "are expanding."
(E) CORRECT. The phrase "created by professional writers, bloggers, and individual users" lists elements in parallel form. Each element in the list is plural and the entire list is introduced by the word "by" which is correctly not repeated. In addition, the singular subject "market" agrees with the singular verb phrase "is expanding."

This sentence contains three parallel elements: “the unusual confluence,” “an unpredictable backdrop,” and “the camaraderie.” Additionally, the introductory modifying phrase “originally developed by ancient Hawaiians” correctly modifies the noun “surfing.”
(A) CORRECT. This choice properly follows rules of parallel construction and uses the introductory phrase to correctly modify the noun “surfing.”
(B) The introductory modifying phrase “originally developed by ancient Hawaiians” incorrectly describes “surfing’s appeal” rather than surfing itself. Additionally, the pronoun “its” has no clear antecedent to refer to.
(C) The introductory modifying phrase “originally developed by ancient Hawaiians” incorrectly describes “surfing’s appeal” rather than surfing itself. Furthermore, the third element of the sentence, “developing camaraderie among people,” is not parallel to the other two elements.
(D) This choice lacks clarity of meaning by stating “a backdrop that is unpredictable and that is, by turns, gracefully and serenely violent and formidable.” The original intent of the sentence is to use the adjectives graceful, serene, violent, and formidable to describe surfing’s “unpredictable backdrop”; this choice improperly
separates this into two distinct ideas. Additionally, this choice incorrectly changes the adjectives “graceful” and “serene” to adverbs “gracefully” and “serenely”; thus, the adverbs incorrectly modify the adjectives “violent” and “formidable” rather than the noun “backdrop.”
(E) The plural pronoun “their” incorrectly refers to the plural noun “people,” making it seem that people, rather than surfing, contain the three parallel elements found in the sentence.

The original is correct. The equivalent elements, “that growth had accelerated...” and “that the policy makers remain...,” are parallel clauses beginning with "that." The verb tenses are also correct; the action that occurred in the most distant past (“had picked up pace”) uses the past perfect; the later past event (“statement also said”) uses the simple past. Also, “few” is correct, since it modifies the quantifiable noun "signs."
(A) CORRECT. This choice is correct as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice is not parallel; "that" is required before “growth had accelerated...” to make it parallel to “that the policy makers remain..."
(C) This choice is not parallel; “that growth had accelerated...” is not parallel to “the policy makers remain...” Moreover, “little” is incorrect; since “signs” are countable, “few” is required.
(D) This choice is parallel, but the syntax is incorrect. "That" can be colloquially omitted after the verb "said," but not in formal writing. Also, "little" should be replaced by "few."
(E) This choice is parallel, but incorrectly uses the simple past, “accelerated.” This action is the earlier past event, as it must have occurred before the Fed commented on the trend. The earlier of multiple past events must use the past perfect.

The original sentence begins with a simple present tense statement, “clean teams can protect sensitive data” that is followed by three verb phrases that are logically parallel in the sentence, and so should be structurally parallel as well. The sentence maintains a parallel construction, using the “-ing” form of each verb (assessing, helping, supporting). Finally, the sentence is clear and concise.
(A) CORRECT. The first choice is correct as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This sentence unnecessarily introduces the connecting phrases “while also” and “as well as”; these phrases are wordy, not grammatically required, and do not improve the clarity of the sentence. The concluding phrase “to support the negotiations” is not parallel with the earlier verb phrases, and incorrectly uses the article “the,” which is unclear given that negotiations were not referenced earlier.
(C) The conjunction “and” joins the first verb phrase with the original statement, which changes the original meaning of the sentence; the correct "while" indicating that the teams can protect sensitive data even while using it. The first and second verb phrases use the simple present tense (“assess" and "help"). However, the last phrase “and supporting relevant negotiations” completely breaks the parallelism and is thus incorrect. Also, this choice is unnecessarily wordy in two ways: It uses the phrase “the rationale of a deal from a business perspective” as opposed to “business rationale” in earlier choices, and it introduces the word “relevant” which adds no meaning, as clearly only relevant negotiations are to be supported.
(D) The second verb phrase, “help to develop a business plan of integration” is structurally not parallel to the equivalent phrases that begin with "facilitating" and "supporting." Also, that phrase is wordier without making the meaning clearer. In addition, this choice incorrectly uses the article “the,” which is unclear given that negotiations were not referenced earlier. Finally, this choice is unnecessarily wordy in its use of “facilitating the assessment” in place of simply “assessing.”
(E) Here, “helping to develop an integrated plan for the business” is not parallel to "assist" and "support," as it must be. Also, the first verb phrase is awkward in its use of “assist the assessment” and “the deal’s business rationale” where no particular deal is being discussed.

The original sentence contains several errors. First, the construction "X rather than Y" requires parallelism between X and Y, but the original sentence pairs an active verb ("accept") with a passive one ("was sent"). Second, the use of "if" in this context is incorrect. On the GMAT, "if" is used only to introduce conditional clauses (e.g. “if X, then Y”). Here, "whether" should be used instead of “if” to indicate uncertainty about reaching India by traveling west.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) The construction "X rather than Y" requires parallelism between X and Y, but this choice pairs an active verb ("accepting") with a passive one ("was sent"). Second, the use of "if" in this context is incorrect. On the GMAT, "if" is used only to introduce conditional clauses (e.g. “if X, then Y”). Here, "whether" should be used instead of “if”
to indicate uncertainty about reaching India by traveling west.
(C) This choice begins with "instead of," which is incorrectly used to compare the verbs “accepting” and “sailed.” When comparing verbs, “rather than” is the correct choice.
(D) CORRECT. This choice uses the construction “X rather than Y” to correctly compare the parallel active verbs “accept” and “sailed.” The uncertainty about reaching India by traveling west is correctly indicated by the word “whether.”
(E) This choice begins with "instead of," which is incorrectly used to compare the verbs “accepting” and “sailed.” When comparing verbs, “rather than” is the correct choice. Even if “instead of” were correct, the construction "X instead of Y" requires parallelism between X and Y, but this choice pairs an active verb ("accepting") with a passive one ("was sent"). Finally, the use of "if" in this context is incorrect. On the GMAT, "if" is used only to introduce conditional clauses (e.g. “if X, then Y”). Here, "whether" should be used instead of “if” to indicate uncertainty about reaching India by traveling west.

The original sentence expresses the main verb “attended” in the past tense and the two subordinate actions in the form of the gerund. This construction correctly indicates that “receiving” and developing” followed as a consequence of Einstein’s attendance of “the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich.”
(A) CORRECT. This answer choice is correct as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This answer choice breaks the correct parallelism of "receiving" and "developing" present in the original sentence.
(C) This answer choice expresses all the verbs in the underlined portion in the same form: “attended,” “received,” and “developed.” This change alters the original meaning of the sentence by making these actions independent and sequential rather than demonstrating that “receiving” and “developing” occurred as a consequence of the
fact that “Albert Einstein attended the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich.” Further, this answer choice introduces the redundant pronoun “he” that unnecessarily repeats the subject of the sentence and breaks parallelism.
(D) This answer choice makes "attended" and "received" parallel, leaving "developing" as a subordinate action. This change alters the meaning of the sentence, as described above in the explanation for choice (C). Moreover, there is no "and" between "attended" and "received," as there should always be between the items in a two-item list.
(E) This answer choice creates an incomplete sentence that lacks the main verb and consists merely of a series of gerunds: “attending,” “receiving,” and “developing.”

The original sentence correctly employs parallel structure in the expression "both x and y." The two items are logically parallel in that both "draining resources" and "diminishing productivity" are direct ways in which spam has hurt companies. The two items are also structurally parallel in that both phrases begin with a gerund ("draining"
and "diminishing") followed by objects ("company resources" and "employee productivity").
(A) CORRECT. This choice is correct as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice incorrectly places "both" after the word "draining" such that the two elements in the expression "both x and y" are not logically parallel. The expression "both x and y" now reads "both company resources . . . and diminishing employee productivity." The second element ("diminishing employee productivity"), unlike the
first element ("company resources"), is a way in which spam has hurt companies. The "draining" of company resources, not the "company resources" themselves, has hurt companies. Moreover, the two items in the expression are no longer structurally parallel: the first element is a noun phrase ("company resources") whereas the second element is a gerund followed by an object ("diminishing employee productivity").
(C) This choice incorrectly places "both" after the word "draining" such that the two elements in the expression "both x and y" are not logically parallel. The expression "both x and y" now reads "both company resources . . . and diminishing employee productivity." The second element ("diminishing employee productivity"), unlike the
first element ("company resources"), is a way in which spam has hurt companies. The "draining" of company resources, not the "company resources" themselves, has hurt companies. Moreover, the two items in the expression are no longer structurally parallel: the first element is a noun phrase ("company resources") whereas the second element is a gerund ("diminishing") followed by a somewhat awkward and wordy clause ("how productive its employees are").
(D) In this choice, the two items in the expression "both x and y" are not structurally parallel: the first element is a gerund followed by an object ("draining company resources") whereas the second element is a clause consisting of a noun ("the productivity) and passive verb construction ("is diminished").
(E) In this choice, the two items in the expression "both x and y" are not structurally parallel: the first element is a gerund ("draining") followed by an object ("company resources") whereas the second element is a gerund ("diminishing") followed by a somewhat awkward and wordy clause ("how productive its employees are").
Additionally, the antecedent to the pronoun "its" is unclear, as "its" structurally could refer to "the problem" or "junk mail" as well as the more logical "company."

The original sentence intends to identify a sparrow by the fact that it lives in cypress groves, eats certain berries, and has certain coloring. All these facts about the sparrow must be presented in parallel form. However, in the original sentence, these facts are presented in different forms. We need to find a choice that presents them all
in parallel fashion. Moreover, "whose coloring is different from all other sparrows" is incorrect. The sparrow's coloring is different from the coloring of other sparrows, not from the sparrows themselves. We need to find a choice that makes this clear.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) CORRECT. This choice remedies the parallelism issue: "lives only in...., is almost wholly... and has coloring..." The comparison issue is also remedied: "has coloring different from that of all other sparrows." The comparison is now logically drawn between the coloring of the new species and the coloring ("that") of other species.
(C) This answer choice remedies neither the parallelism issue ("living..., is almost..., and whose coloring") nor the illogical comparison (coloring and sparrows).
(D) While this answer choice remedies the comparison, the parallelism issue persists from the original sentence.
(E) This parallelism issue has been remedied in this answer choice, but the illogical comparison has not. In addition, the correct idiomatic expression is "different from," not "different than."

The original sentence contains two errors. First, the expression "from X to Y" requires that X and Y be in parallel form. Here, however, "having an enigmatic smile" and "her association with the rich and powerful families of Europe" are not parallel. The first is a verb construction while the second is a noun construction. Since the second
construction is not underlined, the first construction must be altered. Second, the clause "which was never explained" incorrectly uses the simple past "was never explained." Instead, it should be in the present perfect ("has never been explained") because the potential for an explanation began in the past and continues to the
present.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) The parallelism error is not corrected here: "from having an enigmatic smile" is the same as in the original sentence. However, the present perfect tense ("has never been explained") is correctly used here.
(C) The parallelism error is corrected here: "her enigmatic smile" is parallel with "her association with the rich and powerful families of Europe." However, "for which there has never been an explanation" is wordy.
(D) CORRECT. Here, "her enigmatic smile" is parallel with "her association with the rich and powerful families of Europe." Moreover, "which has never been explained" is concise and properly in the present perfect tense.
(E) The parallelism error is not corrected here: "having an enigmatic smile" is the same as in the original sentence. Moreover, "for which there has never been an explanation" is wordy.

A list of three things is underlined in the original sentence, indicating the need to test the sentence for parallelism. According to the non-underlined portion of the sentence, the three verbs starting each item in the list indicate how the substance (tryptophan) helps people to fall asleep: by "reducing", "relaxing" and "regulating." At first glance, it
appears that these 3 verbs - each ending in "ing" - are nicely parallel. However, consider that the list is introduced by the preposition "by." It should read "by x, y, and z" where x, y, and z are parallel. Instead, the list reads "by x, y, and in z." The use of the word "in" to introduce the third element in the list throws off the parallelism and
creates a nonsensical phrase: "by . . .in regulating."
(A) This choice is incorrect because it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice does not correct the original parallelism error; it still uses "in" to introduce the third item in the list. Moreover, that third item--"the regulation of"--is no longer in the "ing" form, further distorting the parallel structure. Finally, the choice creates a new problem. "By" is sufficient to introduce the three items in the list; "by
means of" is redundant.
(C) This choice correctly omits the word "in" when introducing the third item on the list. However, the phrase "regulation of" is no longer parallel with the "ing" endings of the first two items on the list.
(D) CORRECT. This choice corrects the original error by omitting the word "in" when introducing the third item on the list. The three items now follow the parallel structure "by x, y, and z."
(E) This choice corrects the original error by omitting the word "in" when introducing the third item on the list. The three items now follow the parallel structure "by x, y, and z." The choice creates a new problem, however. "By" is sufficient to introduce the three items in the list; "by means of" is redundant.

The comparison in this sentence between “undergoing a gastric bypass” and “to commit to a new lifestyle” is not parallel. To be parallel, the comparison should either be “undergoing” is “committing” or “to undergo” is “to commit.” Furthermore, neither instance of the pronoun “they” has a clear antecedent, since there is no noun to which either “they” could refer. Finally, the “not only X nor Y” construction is unidiomatic; theproper construction is “not only X but also Y.”
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) Neither instance of the pronoun “they” in this choice has a clear antecedent.
(C) In this choice, “undergoing” is not parallel with “to commit.” Additionally, the plural pronoun “they” is incorrectly used to refer to the singular noun “the patient.” Moreover, the "not only X but also Y" construction requires X and Y to be parallel, but "will no longer be permitted" is not parallel to "they will not be allowed."
(D) This choice incorrectly uses the unidiomatic “not only X nor Y.” Additionally, the plural pronoun “they” incorrectly refers to the singular noun “the patient.”
(E) CORRECT. This choice properly compares “to undergo” to “to commit,” correcting the initial error in parallelism. Additionally, the idiomatic “not only X but also Y” is used correctly.

The three listed behaviors of companies that successfully establish operations abroad are logically parallel; therefore, they should be structurally parallel. In the original sentence, the first activity “protect with consistency their intellectual property” is not structured in parallel fashion to the second and third activities. Also, the phrase
“empower local managers with aggression” suggests that the local managers are being given the quality of aggression, which is not contextually appropriate; “aggression” is better applied to the act of empowering the managers, not to the managers themselves.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice incorrectly uses the relative pronoun "which." "Which" should be used for noun modifiers, whereas here "which" is incorrectly used to introduce a set of clauses that are integral to the sentence. Also, the second activity “lobby government officials without tiring” is not structured in parallel fashion to the first and third
activities.
(C) This sentence fails to follow an appropriate parallel structure as it lists the three activities of companies that are successful abroad. Also, the phrase “empower aggressive local managers” suggests that the local managers are aggressive which is not contextually appropriate; “aggressive” is better applied to the act of empowering
the managers, not to the managers themselves.
(D) CORRECT. The three logically parallel activities in this sentence are structurally similar and the sentence is clear and concise.
(E) This choice incorrectly begins with the phrase "of which", which suggests that the operations of the company may be established abroad by a third party other than the company itself. Also, the three logically parallel activities are not structured in parallel fashion.

The phrase “is giving protection to the continent’s ecozone” is not parallel in structure to “was signed in 1959 by 12 countries,” “prohibits any military activity” and “supports scientific research.” Equivalent elements, such as these, must have parallel structures.
(A) The choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) CORRECT. The phrase “protects the continent’s ecozone” is parallel in structure with “was signed in 1959 by 12 countries,” “prohibits any military activity” and “supports scientific research.”
(C) The verb construction “had being signed” is awkward and grammatically incorrect.
(D) The clause “which was signed in 1959 by 12 countries prohibiting any military action ….” changes the meaning of the sentence to state that the countries, rather than the treaty, are doing the prohibiting, supporting and protecting.
(E) The modifier “having been signed in 1959 …” is not parallel with verb phrases “prohibits …, supports …, and protects….” In addition, the entire modifier introduced by the word “having” is grammatically incorrect; verb phrases must be preceded by a relative pronoun such as "which."

In the original sentence, the use of "which" incorrectly implies that the key interest rate has the curious effect, when in fact it is the raising of the interest rate that does. Also, "lowering housing prices instead of raise them" is not a parallel construction. And it is preferable to use "rather than" with verbs, in place of "instead of," which is better used with nouns.
(A) This choice is the same as the original sentence.
(B) CORRECT. This choice remedies the incorrect use of "which." Moreover, it contains the parallel construction "lowering housing prices rather than raising them." Finally, "rather than" is correctly used here in place of "instead of."
(C) This choice corrects the parallelism issue, but it still incorrectly uses "which" and "instead of."
(D) This choice incorrectly uses "which."
(E) This choice incorrectly uses "instead of" and contains the unparallel construction "lowering housing prices instead of raise them."

The original sentence contains the construction "from X to Y," which requires parallelism between X and Y. In this case, X is the regular noun phrase "practical communication," but Y is the gerund "establishing". (A gerund is an "-ing" form of a verb acting as a noun, such as in the sentence "Swimming is fun.") We need to find a choice that puts both X and Y in the same grammatical form. Note that the difference between "people engaged in the same task" and "people engaging in the same task" is minimal. Both forms are valid.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This answer choice changes X to a gerund and Y to a regular noun phrase. X and Y are still not parallel.
(C) Adding the word "the" in front of Y here doesn't change the fact that the regular noun phrase is not parallel to the gerund.
(D) This answer choice changes X to a gerund but Y to "hierarchy established," which is not parallel to X.
(E) CORRECT. This choice correctly changes Y to a regular noun phrase "the establishment of hierarchy," so that this phrase is now parallel to X, "practical communication." It is not necessary that both phrases have the article "the."