Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor

[aaa]

Why doesnt prestigious and often played have to be parallel


Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor was often played in concert halls until it was revived by Andres Segovia in the mid-twentieth century, having been won over by the instrument's sound despite its relative obscurity.
Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor was often played in concert halls until it was revived by Andres Segovia in the mid-twentieth century, having been won over by the instrument's sound despite its relative obscurity.
Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor played often in concert halls until it was revived by Andres Segovia in the mid-twentieth century, having been won over by the instrument's sound despite its relative obscurity.
Classical guitar was not prestigious and was not often played in concert halls until Andres Segovia revived it in the mid-twentieth century, after he was won over by the sound despite the instrument's relative obscurity.
Classical guitar did not have prestige nor was it performed often in concert halls until its revival by Andres Segovia, who in the mid-twentieth century was won over by the instrument's sound despite its relative obscurity.
Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor was often played in concert halls until Andres Segovia revived it in the mid-twentieth century, when he was won over by the sound of the relatively obscure instrument.


In the original sentence, "was" does not need to be repeated after "nor." Moreover, "having been won over..." incorrectly modifies "classical guitar" (the subject of the preceding clause) instead of Segovia.

(A) This choice is the same as the original sentence.

(B) This choice does not correct the modifier issue.

(C) CORRECT. This choice corrects the "nor" issue as well as the modifier issue. Now it is clear that it was Segovia who was won over by the instrument's sound.

(D) This choice is incorrect because the phrase "classical guitar did not have prestige nor was it performed..." is not parallel ("did not have....nor was it performed"). Note that one verb is active & the other is passive. In general, you should make parallel verbs have the same voice: see SC #86 in the 11th edition. In this problem, the GMAT demands parallelism of voices, although the construction is not "nor"-based.

Also, the construction "not... nor..." in this context requires inversion of the second verb ("nor was it performed"). Such inversions can sound stilted. Finally, as an idiom, the expression "to have prestige" is inferior to "to be prestigious."

(E) This choice is incorrect because it repeats "was" after "nor" and because it implies that Segovia was won over by the sound of the instrument in the mid-twentieth century, while the original sentence makes clear that this happened at some earlier point.

[Guest]

Why isnt this getting an answer?

[rfernandez]

You're right that "not prestigious" and "not often played in concert halls" look very different from each other. "Prestigious" is a single word adjective. "Often played in concert halls" is a past participle (played) modified by an adverb (often) and a prepositional phrase (in concert halls).

That said, they are parallel in that each serves the same function -- both are complements that describe classical guitar. There's simply no way that I know of to express the idea "often played in concert halls" with a one-word adjective.

The more practical answer is that a more parallel option is not provided among the choices. C is the best answer.

[edyong]

In the answer choice C does the ", after...." clearly modify the Andres? I eliminated this choice because it thought it has a dangling modifier resulting in sentence fragment.

[RonPurewal]

In the answer choice C does the ", after...." clearly modify the Andres? I eliminated this choice because it thought it has a dangling modifier resulting in sentence fragment.

that's a whole subordinate clause; it's not a modifier.

analogy:
i failed the test, although i had studied for several hours.
--> "although i had studied for several hours" is another complete subordinate clause; it doesn't modify any particular word.

[vm87]

Please explain why C option is wrong.

1. I cant understand what is wrong with the construction "Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor was often played in"

2. Clearly Andreas was won over by the voice of guitar in the mid twentieth century and introduced it in concerts during that time.

[dmitryknowsbest]

Option C is correct. Do you mean A?

We don't want to say "was neither . . nor was . . ."

Since "was" precedes the "neither/nor" part of the sentence, we should just use it once. "Neither" and "nor" introduce the words that describe what classical guitar was not. An example:

"When he arrived at college, he was neither popular nor academically successful."

We can use this with either/or, as well:

"The cause of his illness was either a virus or a toxin."

In both cases, the two words (neither/nor, either/or) create a parallel structure, so we want to use the same kind of language after each. If we use a noun after one, we need one after the other. Usually, we would only do this if we were using two different verbs:

"He either ate an onion or used onion toothpaste."

If we want to use the same verb both times, it's better to put it before the parallel portions:

"He ate either an onion or a turnip."

"Babies are not only cute, but also intelligent."

[yklouk]

Option C is correct. Do you mean A?

We don't want to say "was neither . . nor was . . ."

Since "was" precedes the "neither/nor" part of the sentence, we should just use it once. "Neither" and "nor" introduce the words that describe what classical guitar was not. An example:

"When he arrived at college, he was neither popular nor academically successful."

We can use this with either/or, as well:

"The cause of his illness was either a virus or a toxin."

In both cases, the two words (neither/nor, either/or) create a parallel structure, so we want to use the same kind of language after each. If we use a noun after one, we need one after the other. Usually, we would only do this if we were using two different verbs:

"He either ate an onion or used onion toothpaste."

If we want to use the same verb both times, it's better to put it before the parallel portions:

"He ate either an onion or a turnip."

"Babies are not only cute, but also intelligent."

Umm...dmitryknowsbest, but I found a sentence from prep that doesn't follow normal principle: "A substance, which was recently discovered, from the licorice plant, 50 times sweeter than sucrose, is not only a natural sweetener but also prevents tooth decay."

As you see, the "is" is before "not only", while "prevents" is after "but also". So when I was doing this thread's question in MGMAT, I thought "was" could be set before "neither".

And also, I considered the "was" in "was prestigious" and that in "was often played in concert halls" have different functions, one linking verb while the other only an auxiliary. Elements with different functions couldn't parallel, don't they? Just as in the following case, which is a wrong sentence, because "that" is the subject in the clause lead by itself, whereas "where" is an adverbial conjunction:

Minnesota is the only one of the contiguous forty-eight states that still has a sizable population of wolves, and where this predator remains the archenemy of cattle and sheep.

Thus, I think the "was" following "nor" couldn't be omitted, and the major problem in the structure "Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor was often played in concert halls" is that "not prestigious" and "not often played" are in progressive relationship and "neither...nor..." is used in parallel relationship, so we couldn't use "neither ... nor ..." but rather use "and" to connect them.

[dmitryknowsbest]

Hi yklouk,

The licorice plant sentence is not correct as written. In addition to the parallelism error, it contains multiple modifier errors. I'd double-check that answer!

The problem with "that" and "where" in the Minnesota problem is that those are two different parts of speech. "That" is a pronoun and "where" is a conjunction, at least in this context.

We wouldn't want to use "and" to connect the two items. Since we are negating them, neither/nor is the appropriate construction.

[yklouk]

Hi yklouk,

The licorice plant sentence is not correct as written. In addition to the parallelism error, it contains multiple modifier errors. I'd double-check that answer!

The problem with "that" and "where" in the Minnesota problem is that those are two different parts of speech. "That" is a pronoun and "where" is a conjunction, at least in this context.

We wouldn't want to use "and" to connect the two items. Since we are negating them, neither/nor is the appropriate construction.

Thx, dmitryknowsbest, but please allow me to dig into the problem a little bit more.

I found another two problems from prep:
(1)Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has argued that many biological traits are not the products of natural selection, favored due to their enhancement of reproduction or survival, but that they are simply random by-products of other evolutionary developments.
(A) due to their enhancement of reproduction or survival, but that they are
(B) due to the reproduction or survival they enhance, but they are
(C) because they enhance reproduction or survival, but
(D) because they enhance reproduction or survival, but are
(E) because of enhancing reproduction or survival, but are
Official Answer is D.
you can see, "are not" is parallel with "but are". both clauses use the same verb "are".

(2)Evolutionary psychology holds that the human mind is not a "blank slate," but instead that it comprises specialized mental mechanisms that were developed as a way of solving specific problems human ancestors faced millions of years ago.
(A) the human mind is not a "blank slate," but instead that it comprises specialized mental mechanisms that were developed as a way of solving
(B) the human mind is not a "blank slate" but instead comprises specialized mental mechanisms that were developed to solve
(C) the human mind, instead of a "blank slate," it comprises specialized mental mechanisms that have been developed to solve
(D) rather than it being a "blank slate," the human mind comprises specialized mental mechanisms that have been developed as a way of solving
(E) rather than the human mind's being a "blank slate," that it comprises specialized mental mechanisms that were developed as a way of solving
OA is B. In this question, "is not" parallels with "but instead comprises".
============================
As to "neither...nor...", I've checked many dictionaries and usage samples, and I found out that two things connected by "neither..nor..." should be logically parallel. Such as "The equipment is neither accurate nor safe."(From Longman). While in this thread's question, I think "not prestigious" and "not often played" are not logically parallel, since "not prestigious" is sound like the reason of "not often played". So, I doubt whether "neither...nor" could be used here.
======
I believe that "parallel things" should be with the same function, as stated here:
Parallelism in sentences refers to matching grammatical structures. Elements in a sentence that have the same function or express similar ideas should be grammatically parallel, or grammatically matched.
Read more: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/ ... z16Z5VYTnl

Also could be seen from this MGMAT question:
Aerugo, also known as verdigris, is the green "bloom" visible on many copper items, and is produced, like iron rust, over the course of time by the exposure of the metal to the oxygen in the atmosphere.
A. visible on many copper items, and is produced
B. that is visible on many copper items, and which produces
C. visible on many copper items, and produces
D. that is visible on many copper items, and that produces
E. which is visible on many copper items, and which is produced
oa is A

So, in this thread's question, if we wrote "Classical guitar was neither prestigious nor often played in concert halls", the sentence would be wrong, because "prestigious" and "played" don't function the same, as the former is an adjective and the later a concrete verb, which always follows an auxiliary "be" verb.

Umm...correct me if I'm wrong, thanks!

[tim]

In your first example, don't get thrown off by the "not". The construction here is "are X but are Y", which is fine..

The second example follows the "X but instead Y" construction, where X represents "is not". Again, this is fine..

As to your question about the original problem, "prestigious" and "often played" are certainly parallel because they are both modifiers. Do not fall into the trap of assuming anything that ends in "-ed" is a verb. With parallelism issues, you need to give the sentence a chance to be parallel. Don't throw out an answer just because it doesn't match with your preferred interpretation; rather, keep the answer if it is possible for it to exhibit proper parallelism under some interpretation..

A final word of caution: be careful relying on outside grammar sources for SC rules; the grammar used on the GMAT does not always agree 100% with rules you see in other books, and you need to use the GMAT's rules if you want to be correct according to the GMAT..

[chitrangada.maitra]

In the 'Classical Guitar ...' question, I don't understand why option B is incorrect.

The answer explanation says : Moreover, "having been won over..." incorrectly modifies "classical guitar" (the subject of the preceding clause) instead of Segovia.

Isn't the modifier ' having been won over ...' suppose to modify the entire clause before the comma?

[jnelson0612]

In the 'Classical Guitar ...' question, I don't understand why option B is incorrect.

The answer explanation says : Moreover, "having been won over..." incorrectly modifies "classical guitar" (the subject of the preceding clause) instead of Segovia.

Isn't the modifier ' having been won over ...' suppose to modify the entire clause before the comma?

Think about "having been won over"--who was actually won over? Was it the classical guitar, was it the entire clause before the comma, or was it Andres Segovia? I must have a person was "won over"; thus, we have to correct this modifier. Answer choice C does this.

[ganile]

Classical guitar was not prestigious and was not often played in concert halls until Andres Segovia revived it in the mid-twentieth century, after he was won over by the sound despite the instrument's relative obscurity.

Don't we require its sound instead of The sound.?
Am I missing sth?

[jnelson0612]

Classical guitar was not prestigious and was not often played in concert halls until Andres Segovia revived it in the mid-twentieth century, after he was won over by the sound despite the instrument's relative obscurity.

Don't we require its sound instead of The sound.?
Am I missing sth?

"the sound" is perfectly acceptable. The implication is "the sound (of the guitar)". Also, I generally try to not insert pronouns in sentences unless they are necessary since extraneous pronouns can create confusion.