Although energy prices have tripled in the United States

[harpreet1205]

actually, all of your eliminations have some element of truth but are all flawed in some way:

1) the word "having" is not always wrong, but it is in this case. make sure you know why..

2) you should not get rid of answer choices because other choices have idioms you like. get rid of them because they are wrong on their own. the problem is that if you indicate few people that means you're pointing them out..

3) D is 100% parallel; its parallelism just creates an absurd meaning..

4) don't ever pick an answer choice because it gets something right. pick it because all the others are wrong..[/quote]


Can you please explain how D is parallel.
"have reduced" and "are not making"

The first one is present perfect whereas the latter is present continuous.
Shouldn't the tense on both the sides of parallel marker be the same. Though I know that there are situations where the aforesaid need not necessarily be true but what about in this case.

Also can you please throw some light on when the tense on either side of the parallel marker is same and when it is not.

[harpreet1205]

Hi Ron,

I came down to D and E, I took D why is E is better than E.
made is Past tense while indicates in present tense..

There's a problem of meaning here. Let me illustrate with an analogy.

Few of these animals eat or drink during the harsh daylight hours --> this sentence would mean that the animals do neither of these activities, in the main, during daylight hours.

few of these animals eat and avoid drinking during the harsh daylight hours --> the sentence would mean that there are few animals that do both of these things, but leaves open the possibility that many, or perhaps even a majority, do one or the other. Also, this wording is hopelessly awkward, but it probably takes a native speaker's ear to discern that fact.

the last two choices of the problem exhibit the same sort of issue. The intended meaning is that people are doing either of these activities, so (e) is the only one of these two choices to correctly represent this meaning.

Ron, about the difference between"Few....or" and "Few...and",I wanna share my understanding on this ,which is inspired by your explanation.:-)

Lack of "a native speaker's ear", I'm trying to understand this seemingly idiomatic usage of "or" with logical thought. And I think it comes from the idea of "avioding ambiguity".

Math can be used here to clarify this question.
presuming A is a set of number and B is another set of number,
then ：A or B is A∪B， A and B is A∩B

then：few.....A or B, is denying A∪B, meaning of which is clear.
but: few....A&B, induce confusion about whether the setence is "denying A and at the same time denying B" or "denying A∩B" ? the former shares the same meaning with "denying A∪B", but the latter one is a totally different meaning, which may be what" a native speaker's ear" perceives according to Ron's explanation.
well, in short, the matter here is which one is the meaning that the speaker wanna express? Ambiguity emerges.

Therefore, I think the usage of "or" after negative attributes comes from the logic behind.

sorry for some possible misuse of terms, such as "deny", can you tell me the right way to say that ?

Hi Ron,

I have a doubt about what has been mentioned.
As someone pointed out

"
but: few....A&B, induce confusion about whether the sentence is "denying A and at the same time denying B" or "denying A∩B" ? the former shares the same meaning with "denying A∪B", but the latter one is a totally different meaning,"

[color=#BF4040]
D. that few people have significantly reduced the amount of driving they do and are not making
E. that few people have significantly reduced the amount of driving they do or made

According to what has been mentioned there is a common verb
denying(or anything for that matter),therefore the ambiguity arises but in D are not making is an independent verb in this clause. Can we actually apply this theory or principle to this question in particular.

I don't intend to say that it is wrong probably this principle as a standalone principle might be correct, But does this principle really apply to this question??....Please clarify

[/color]

[RonPurewal]

Not a grammar issue in (D).

(D) says that "Few people ... are not making fuel efficiency a priority".
Which means that most people are making fuel efficiency a priority.
That's precisely the opposite of the desired meaning.

[harpreet1205]

Hi Ron,

My question was different. I understand that there is an ambiguity issue in D but what I intended to ask was that someone extended the set theory in maths to this question to show that there is indeed an ambiguity. Can that principle even apply here, because the example he(the person who used the set theory) cited to show the ambiguity has a common verb("denying") which is not true for option D as option D has two independent verbs on either side of "and" as I pointed out.
This was the question...


Also could you please throw some light on the earlier query I raised.

Thanks in advance...

[harpreet1205]

By earlier query I meant this

"

Can you please explain how D is parallel.
"have reduced" and "are not making"

The first one is present perfect whereas the latter is present continuous.
Shouldn't the tense on both the sides of parallel marker be the same. Though I know that there are situations where the aforesaid need not necessarily be true but what about in this case.

Also can you please throw some light on when the tense on either side of the parallel marker is same and when it is not.
"

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

My question was different. I understand that there is an ambiguity issue in D but what I intended to ask was that someone extended the set theory in maths to this question to show that there is indeed an ambiguity. Can that principle even apply here, because the example he(the person who used the set theory) cited to show the ambiguity has a common verb("denying") which is not true for option D as option D has two independent verbs on either side of "and" as I pointed out.
This was the question...

If you're using "math theory" instead of everyday common sense to interpret SC sentences, then the verbal section is going to be extremely painful.

I don't really understand the set-theory question; sorry.
More importantly, though, it's not going to be productive to approach the sentence that way. Quite the opposite.

[RonPurewal]

In any case, there's actually no ambiguity in the correct answer at all. Even without applying common sense to deduce its meaning. There's only one valid reading of it.
It says:
Few people do x or do y.
Only one meaning is possible for this. It's talking about the number of people who do x or do y (exactly as it says). That number is small.
How else could it be interpreted? (Without math symbols, please.)

[RonPurewal]

Shouldn't the tense on both the sides of parallel marker be the same.

In general, not necessarily.

If you're dealing with two actions presented together, from a similar point of view, in exactly the same timeframe, then they will usually have the same tense.
Here, we're talking about 2 things that very few people have done -- in the same timeframe, and for the same purpose (conservation) -- so, yes, you'd ideally want the tenses to match here.

I'd like to ask a favor: Please end questions with a question mark. It will be a lot easier for us to tell what you're asking.

Also can you please throw some light on when the tense on either side of the parallel marker is same and when it is not.

See above. 100% context, 0% grammar. Like all verb tense issues.

From the standpoint of pure grammar, a verb is a verb is a verb. Tenses affect (and are affected by) meaning, but not grammar.

[harpreet1205]

Thanks Ron

[harpreet1205]

Thanks Ron

[RonPurewal]

Sure.

[Suapplle]

Hi,Ron,I don't understand why choice d is unparallel?
there is no need to keep the same tense in a parallel structure,right?

[RonPurewal]

Hi,Ron,I don't understand why choice d is unparallel?
there is no need to keep the same tense in a parallel structure,right?

You're correct that there's no problem with parallelism. However, the two things being studied are presumably simultaneous -- they're in the same study, regarding the same consumers -- so the sentence is most sensible if the tenses are the same.

More problematic, in that answer choice, is the combination of "few people have done X AND are NOT doing Y". That sounds as though there are only a few people who aren't making fuel efficiency a priority -- exactly the opposite of what the sentence is supposed to say. (If that were the intended meaning of the sentence, it would have to contain "but" or something similar.)

[Tadashi]

Hi experts
I wanna ask 2 questions about the parallel structure.
Q1.
->
Subject A have done XX and (have) done YY [ OA ]
Subject A can do XX and (can) do YY
Subject A will do XX and (will) do YY
Subject A is/am/are doing XX and (is/am/are) doing YY

All the sentences above are correct.
Please confirm.

Q2.
->
Subject B have done XX but (have) not done YY.
Subject B can do XX but (can) not do YY
Subject B will do XX but (will) not do YY
Subject B is/am/are doing XX but (is/am/are) not doing YY

All the sentences above are correct.
Please confirm.

Want to learn "and","but","not" better.
Thank u so much in advance.
Tadashi.

[RonPurewal]

Hi experts
I wanna ask 2 questions about the parallel structure.
Q1.
->
Subject A have done XX and (have) done YY [ OA ]
Subject A can do XX and (can) do YY
Subject A will do XX and (will) do YY
Subject A is/am/are doing XX and (is/am/are) doing YY

All the sentences above are correct.
Please confirm.

Q2.
->
Subject B have done XX but (have) not done YY.
Subject B can do XX but (can) not do YY
Subject B will do XX but (will) not do YY
Subject B is/am/are doing XX but (is/am/are) not doing YY

All the sentences above are correct.
Please confirm.

Want to learn "and","but","not" better.
Thank u so much in advance.
Tadashi.

Absent a context, all of these could"”depending on context, of course"”be ok.