Scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory

[Guest660]

Scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory have succeeded for the first time in mining heat from the Earth’s interior and producing energy on a commercial scale, enough for efficient generation of electricity and heating factories and homes.
A. and producing energy on a commercial scale, enough for efficient generation of electricity and heating
B. and producing enough energy on a commercial scale for electricity to be generated efficiently and to heat
C. for energy production on a commercial scale, enough for generating electricity efficiently and to heat
D. to produce energy on a commercial scale, enough for generating electricity efficiently and for heating
E. to produce enough energy on a commercial scale for efficient generation of electricity and heat

Why is A wrong ...
I thought mining is || to producing

Also--
enough for efficient generation of electricity and (for) heating ... can we say the second for is implied in A???

[H]

I think meaning-wise, "mining...to produce..." is better than the parallel structure "mining...and producing..." because "mining...to produce..." shows the purpose of "mining...".

If you try to make the sentence parallel, then you can read the sentence as
Scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory have succeeded for the first time in producing energy on a commercial scale.

Then, it seems that "producing energy on a commercial scale" has no relationship with "mining..."

Just my 2 cents.

[Cobra]

I have always found that it is important to understand the complete meaning of a sentence like this to figure out as to where the parallelism lies.

In this sentence the scientists have succeeded in mining heat * to produce energy
It is important to understand that it is heat that is mined helps to produce energy.

Moreover Mining heat on a large scale maybe something innovative
But we do know that producing energy on large scale is not innovative ...

So A B and C are out

Between D and E

I'd vote for D b/c of parallelism between for X and for Y

Also in E enough energy on a commercial scale for x and y is awkward

My 2c

[Amit]

I am a bit confused.
What is the sentence trying to say?
Is it that scientists succeeded in mining for the first time or mining to produce commercial energy for the first time(means they had mined before)
I think whether we choose to use "and" or "to" depends on that.
Expert help needed please:)

[RonPurewal]

I am a bit confused.
What is the sentence trying to say?
Is it that scientists succeeded in mining for the first time or mining to produce commercial energy for the first time(means they had mined before)
I think whether we choose to use "and" or "to" depends on that.
Expert help needed please:)

well, both interpretations make some sense.

but, that's a non-issue here, because there are blatant errors in all but one of the choices.

i mean, i hope this is pretty clear, but—you should ALWAYS deal with CORRECT VS. INCORRECT before thinking about subtleties!

here, both sentences with one of your possible meanings (mining ... AND producing) have blatant non-parallelism.
choice A puts for efficient generation in parallel with heating, and choice B puts for electricity to be generated in parallel with to heat.

in fact, only choice D is parallel at all!

that's the point of this problem. this problem is designed to be easy for people who see the major issue—parallelism—and hard for people who get distracted by all the random other stuff.

[aaa]

Why is e wrong? Could "to produce" be parallel to "heat" (the to is implied)? Is the problem w/ "e" a change in meaning? Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Why is e wrong? Could "to produce" be parallel to "heat" (the to is implied)? Is the problem w/ "e" a change in meaning? Thanks

yes.

two ways you could look at it, both of which reach the same conclusion anyway:
(a) the logical parallelism is between generating electricity and heating homes/factories. therefore, any construction that creates parallelism between elements other than these is incorrect.
or
(b) the parallelism in the original choice, which makes sense and therefore must be followed, is between those two things. therefore, any answer choice putting other elements in parallel constitutes an unacceptable change in meaning.

either way you will conclude that (e) is incorrect.

[sdg900]

Hi Ron,

In option C/D, isn't "enough for generating electricity efficiently ..." modifying "commercial scale" ?? !!

Thanks,

[tim]

no. just ask yourself what you have enough of, and it should become clear.. :)

[mcmebk]

no. just ask yourself what you have enough of, and it should become clear.. :)

Tim your answers always confuses me more, it seems that you most of the time detour to answer our questions directly and explain to us with reasons and examples, instead you throw questions back to us as if we should know them without asking you.

In this question, I also have questions about what "enough for..." modifies, since it is an adj modifier, it should modify the noun that is right next to it, where am I wrong here?

Thank you.

[thanghnvn]

I also come to D.
but one question.

"enough for doing st" is idiomatic

or

"enough to do st" is idiomatic

I usualy see" enough for somebody to do st"

why in this choice D, the OA, we can use "for doing" ?

[thanghnvn]

Hi Ron,

In option C/D, isn't "enough for generating electricity efficiently ..." modifying "commercial scale" ?? !!

Thanks,

"enough for ..." modifies "energy". remember, if there is 2 modifiers, one of modifier can modify the FAR noun because we can not alway make modifiers touching the noun modified.
NOUN+MODIFIER 1+MODIFIER 2.
if the phrase between NOUN and MODIFIER 2 is not modifier of that noun, the pattern is wrong.
consider:
the cake on the table eaten by the cat is mine
this is correct . both "on the table" and "eaten...cat" are modifiers.
I eat the cake quickly on the table.
this is wrong because "quickly" is not modifier of the cake, and "on the table " can not jump over "quickly" to modify noun

we accept the jumping of modifier 2,only there is a modifier between noun and the modifier 2. modifier 2 can not "jump"over a phrase, which is not the modifier of that noun.

in short, a noun modifiers do not alway need to touch that noun.

this problem is exlained in some grammar books but not all and so, it becomes hard for us. but this problem is still a rule problem, which we can learn as a machine do. Noun modifiers is tested heavily on og books.

this point is important. If we understand this point, we do not eliminate the correct answer. Understanding this point also helps us understand the reading passage quickly.

hope I help you

[thanghnvn]

Scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory have succeeded for the first time in mining heat from the Earth’s interior and producing energy on a commercial scale, enough for efficient generation of electricity and heating factories and homes.
A. and producing energy on a commercial scale, enough for efficient generation of electricity and heating
B. and producing enough energy on a commercial scale for electricity to be generated efficiently and to heat
C. for energy production on a commercial scale, enough for generating electricity efficiently and to heat
D. to produce energy on a commercial scale, enough for generating electricity efficiently and for heating
E. to produce enough energy on a commercial scale for efficient generation of electricity and heat

Why is A wrong ...
I thought mining is || to producing

Also--
enough for efficient generation of electricity and (for) heating ... can we say the second for is implied in A???

paraleliam between 2 verbs is tested often in og books. whenever you see many forms of verbs, ask yourself : two actions are independent or two actions are modifying each other. it is hard for us to answer this question in the test room. This is meaning problem, which is easy to explain but hard to solve correctly and so is characteristic of gmat sc. It take me a long time to solve this question.

in A and B, "mining" is parallel to "producing". this means 2 actions are independant. This is not intended meaning. VERY HARD.

[mcmebk]

Hi Ron,

In option C/D, isn't "enough for generating electricity efficiently ..." modifying "commercial scale" ?? !!

Thanks,

"enough for ..." modifies "energy". remember, if there is 2 modifiers, one of modifier can modify the FAR noun because we can not alway make modifiers touching the noun modified.
NOUN+MODIFIER 1+MODIFIER 2.
if the phrase between NOUN and MODIFIER 2 is not modifier of that noun, the pattern is wrong.
consider:
the cake on the table eaten by the cat is mine
this is correct . both "on the table" and "eaten...cat" are modifiers.
I eat the cake quickly on the table.
this is wrong because "quickly" is not modifier of the cake, and "on the table " can not jump over "quickly" to modify noun

we accept the jumping of modifier 2,only there is a modifier between noun and the modifier 2. modifier 2 can not "jump"over a phrase, which is not the modifier of that noun.

in short, a noun modifiers do not alway need to touch that noun.

this problem is exlained in some grammar books but not all and so, it becomes hard for us. but this problem is still a rule problem, which we can learn as a machine do. Noun modifiers is tested heavily on og books.

this point is important. If we understand this point, we do not eliminate the correct answer. Understanding this point also helps us understand the reading passage quickly.

hope I help you

Thank you for the great explanation!

I still have a question on this point though, in your example:

the cake on the table eaten by the cat is mine - it is understood both the modifiers modify the cake, consider this sentense:

The cake on the table bought from that shop is mine. - How do you decide whether bought from that shop modifies the cake or the table?

Thank you again for your answers.

[RonPurewal]

the cake on the table eaten by the cat is mine - it is understood both the modifiers modify the cake, consider this sentense:

The cake on the table bought from that shop is mine. - How do you decide whether bought from that shop modifies the cake or the table?

these sentences don't really work in general -- there are structural issues, not to mention that the first one contradicts itself -- so it's unwise to spend further time considering them.