1 Prep Sc

[BG]

Unlike George Wallace in 1968 and John Anderson in 1980, both of whom running as independent candidates, H.Ross Perot's independent run for the presidency in 1992 arose not from an unsuccessful effort to gain a major party nomination but from a desire to establish a viable third party in American politics.
A George Wallace in1968 and John Anderson in1980, both of whom running as independent candidates,
B George Wallace in1968 and John Anderson in1980, each of whom ran as independent candidates,
C George Wallace in1968 and John Anderson in1980, both of which ran as an independent candidate,
D the independent cadidates, George Wallace in1968 and John Anderson in1980,
E the independent candidacies of George Wallace in1968 and John Anderson in1980,

Ans: E

But I chose D. I think it's about parallellism. E is " the independent candidacies" parallel with" H Ross Perot's independent run for"? In my view, there are no parallellism among 5 choices.

[RonPurewal]

you're right: it's about parallelism.

you have the following:
Unlike _______, Perot's independent run blah blah blah...

therefore, whatever is in the sentence's opener, directly following "unlike", MUST be parallel to perot's run for presidency, NOT to perot himself.

the first 4 choices are all people. these would be parallel to perot himself, but not to his run for the presidency.
strike them all.

the last choice describes other candidates' candidacies, a notion that's logically parallel to perot's run for the presidency.

E is " the independent candidacies" parallel with" H Ross Perot's independent run for"? In my view, there are no parallellism among 5 choices.

wrong.
"independent candidacy" and "independent run" are exactly the same thing, so they're definitely parallel.

maybe you didn't know "run" could be used to mean "candidacy".
well, now you do!

[JaneC643]

Hi, Ron，
I understand the parallelism of this problem. But what bothers me is the usage of "both of whom" and "each of whom". I've seen them in a multiple of times, but I'am still confused about it. To make my question more specific, I made up a batch of sentence. Please correct me if I am wrong.

1a. I admire George Wallace and John Anderson, both of whom running as independent candidates. (wrong sentence,a lack of"verb")
1b. I admire George Wallace and John Anderson, both of whom ran as independent candidates.(correct sentence, because I use a specific verb "run" rather than participle "running")
1c. I admire George Wallace and John Anderson, both of them ran as independent candidates. (wrong sentence, because it is a "run-on" sentence.)
1d. I admire George Wallace and John Anderson, and both of them ran as independent candidates.( Inferior sentence compared with 1b, because there is no essential connection between both of them and previous sentence. But we cannot deem it wrong unless there is a better construction in the question)
1e. I admire George Wallace and John Anderson, both of them running as independent candidates.(Wrong sentence, because there is no verb and conjunction)

2a.I admire George Wallace and John Anderson, each of whom running an an independent candidate. (wrong sentence, a lack of"verb")
2b.I admire George Wallace and John Anderson, each of whom ran as an independent candidate.(correct sentence)
2c.I admire George Wallace and John Anderson, each of them ran as an independent candidates.(wrong sentence, because it is a "run-on" sentence).

In the last, what is the difference between 1b and 2b? Both "each of whom" and "both of whom" seems correct to me.

Thank you for your help! I really appreciate!

[RonPurewal]

1b and 2b are both fine.

ironically, you're missing the way in which this difference would most likely be tested (in the unlikely event that it's actually tested, that is).
if it's tested at all, the decision point will probably be singular/plural.

i.e.,
..., each of whom ran as an independent candidate --> ok
..., each of whom ran as independent candidates --> nope, singular/plural mismatch ("each" = each individual person; one person can't run as multiple candidates)
..., both of whom ran as an independent candidate --> nope, unless wallace was the upper body and anderson was the legs!
..., both of whom ran as independent candidates --> ok.

[RonPurewal]

i wrote "ironically" because the decision point described above--"each" = singular, "all"/"both" = plural--is the only reason why "each" vs. "all" is relevant in the problem at hand. in particular, it's the reason why (b) is wrong.

[subhojyoti.it]

HI Ron

is "unlike candidacy of X, Y's candidacy "
considered a preferable parallel struct over
"Unlike x's candidacy, Y's candidacy"?

[RonPurewal]

if the "x" and the "y" themselves have the same structure, then of course you'd prefer the version that makes them look the same.
neither version is actually incorrect, though, so you'd want to look somewhere else for an actual error.

if there are differences-- e.g., if the "x" is much longer, as it is here-- then there may be good stylistic reasons to change "x's candidacy" to "the candidacy of x".

[subhojyoti.it]

Ron
On the test how likely is it that i will made to pick a choice based on only this difference?
On a side note: im a big fan of yours. Thanks for taking sc on to a different dimension.

[RonPurewal]

conveniently, i can just quote myself:

neither version is actually incorrect, though, so you'd want to look somewhere else for an actual error.

hence the chance is zero percent.