Florida’s Gainesville-Hawthorne State Trail

[ajithalexjacob]

Florida’s Gainesville-Hawthorne State Trail, a mixed-use recreation trail paved over an old rail bed, is a curious paradox: it is not only completely man-made but also designed exclusively for human use, yet is classified as a state park.
A is not only completely man-made but also designed exclusively for human use, yet is
B not only is completely man-made but also exclusively designed for human use, yet it is
C is completely man-made but also exclusively designed for human use, yet
D is completely man-made but also has been designed exclusively for human use, yet is
E is not only completely man-made but also is exclusively designed for human use, yet

How do I distinguish between A and B?

[rupali.kunmun]

The position of "is" changes the meaning of the sentence:

A is not only completely man-made but also designed exclusively for human use, yet is
B not only is completely man-made but also exclusively designed for human use, yet it is

Option A has a verb in the second part of the sentence

It is not only completely man made but also designed exclusively for human use

Option B has a missing verb in the second part of the sentence

It not only is completely man made but also exclusively designed for human use



The second issue is the position of the word exclusively changes the meaning of the sentence

exclusively designed and designed exclusively for human use

[ajithalexjacob]

The position of "is" changes the meaning of the sentence:

A is not only completely man-made but also designed exclusively for human use, yet is
B not only is completely man-made but also exclusively designed for human use, yet it is

Option A has a verb in the second part of the sentence

It is not only completely man made but also designed exclusively for human use

Option B has a missing verb in the second part of the sentence

It not only is completely man made but also exclusively designed for human use



The second issue is the position of the word exclusively changes the meaning of the sentence

exclusively designed and designed exclusively for human use

HI Rupali,

What do you mean when you say verb is missing in the second part of the sentence for option B?

[rupali.kunmun]

It not only is completely man made but also exclusively designed for human use

The above is an example of parallelism.

It is completely man made.(this sentence has a verb "is")

It exclusively designed for human use (this sentence doesnt have a verb and sounds weird).

[ajithalexjacob]

It not only is completely man made but also exclusively designed for human use

The above is an example of parallelism.

It is completely man made.(this sentence has a verb "is")

It exclusively designed for human use (this sentence doesnt have a verb and sounds weird).

Isn't designed a verb over here?

[rupali.kunmun]

It (subject) is (working verb) exclusively designed for human use(this is an object an prepositional phrase)

[tim]

you would not say "it designed for human use", but instead you would say "it is designed for human use". let us know if there are any other questions about this one..

[alexcey]

you would not say "it designed for human use", but instead you would say "it is designed for human use". let us know if there are any other questions about this one..

I don't understand how only one instance of the pronoun it can be sufficient in the sentence. Yet is a coordinating conjunction, so wouldn't such a structure create a fragment? I've always thought this type of sentence would not be acceptable - "Bob is rich, yet is cheap"

Explanation from the problem:
"Since the pronoun it, referring to the trail, is the subject of the first clause, it is also by default the subject of the second; thus no subject is needed between yet and is."

[tim]

i'm not sure what your point or question is here. as near as i can tell, you seem to think i said something that i didn't..

[alexcey]

i'm not sure what your point or question is here. as near as i can tell, you seem to think i said something that i didn't..

Sorry for the confusion, Tim. Please let me clarify the question.

I was just referring to the explanation given in Manhattan GMAT CAT test that I saw several days ago when taking CAT #6.

"Since the pronoun it, referring to the trail, is the subject of the first clause, it is also by default the subject of the second; thus no subject is needed between yet and is."

This explanation states that there are two clauses in the sentence and that the second clause has an implied subject. Wouldn't a second clause without a subject automatically become a fragment - by the definition of a sentence fragment?

For instance, does it mean then that the following sentence is grammatically correct on GMAT? "Bob is rich, yet is cheap".

I can see that "Bob is rich, yet cheap" is fine since it's still a sentence with one clause in which rich and cheap are made parallel.

[tim]

i think your final sentence absolutely demonstrates your grasp of this one. "rich" and "cheap" are parallel, and that's all that matters. normally of course in such a situation you wouldn't see a comma in front of the "yet", but that doesn't automatically ruin the parallelism you've identified..

[alexcey]

It's just I'm still not clear why this sentence would be considered correct, as per the explanation:

"Bob is rich, yet is cheap" - two clauses with just one subject.

[tim]

you already told me! rich and cheap are parallel. end of story. remember, you should NEVER ask why something is right. ask if something is wrong, and if you cannot prove for certain that it is wrong then leave it alone..

[gibran274]

whats the answer?

[tim]

A