By pressing a tiny amount of nitrogen between two diamonds

[ya1ya2]

Ron,
Absolutely fantabulistic.. Been searching for an explanation of exactly what is not only...but also.. Found it! I think MGMT SC book should include this piece for sure..

[RonPurewal]

Ron,
Absolutely fantabulistic.. Been searching for an explanation of exactly what is not only...but also.. Found it! I think MGMT SC book should include this piece for sure..

glad you liked it.

[Mymisc]

actually, here's a more accurate take on what's going on here.

IN ACTUALITY, there is really only one base structure here, which is "not ... but ..."

that's actually the only TRUE set of parallel markers here. "only" and "also" are adverbs, and so ultimately function as modifiers -- i.e., they aren't necessary to the structure.
still, since "not only ... but also ..." is so common, you may want to memorize it separately -- but be aware that this is NOT the only correct form of this idiom.

the MOST reliable way to deconstruct this idiom is just to memorize "not ... but ...", and then ignore the adjectives "only" and "also" in deciding whether structures are grammatically parallel.
in deciding the MEANING of the structure, you can't dismiss "only" and "also" ... but that's a separate issue. see below.

--

EXAMPLES:
BE SURE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY EACH OF THESE IS CORRECT OR INCORRECT

the writer was not only mortified by her mistake but determined to correct it in print.
--> CORRECT

the writer not only was mortified by her mistake but was determined to correct it in print.
--> CORRECT

the writer was not only mortified by her mistake but was determined to correct it in print.
--> INCORRECT

the small child was relieved to hear that the rustling under the bed was caused not by a ghost but by his pet cat.
--> CORRECT

the small child was relieved to hear that the rustling under the bed was caused not by a ghost but his pet cat.
--> INCORRECT

--

SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE, THEN, WITH
"not only ... but also ..."
"not only ... but ..."
"not ... but ..."
?

the difference here is strictly one of MEANING.

the first two are pretty similar; the last one is TOTALLY different.

(1) "not only ... but also ..." is used to refer to two descriptions that REINFORCE each other (i.e., both have the same connotation -- two good things, two bad things, two helpful things, etc.), but are fundamentally independent.
ex:
this drug is not only an alertness aid, but also an antidepressant.
--> "alertness aid" and "antidepressant" are TWO GOOD THINGS that have basically NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.
therefore, "not only ... but also".

(2) "not only ... but ..." is also used to refer to two descriptions that REINFORCE each other, but it's generally used when the second description EXPANDS or GOES BEYOND the first.
ex:
ryan not only competed in all the events, but won first prize in three of them.
--> note that "won first prize in three of [the events]" is an EXTENSION of "compet[ing] in all the events". these are not independent.

the above difference between (1) and (2) is subtle, and is therefore not terribly important. however, you MUST be able to tell those from the next one:

(3) "not ... but ..." is used when the FIRST thing is EXPECTED, ASSUMED, or PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT, but is REFUTED / CONTRADICTED / DISPROVED by the SECOND thing.
ex:
the snacks known as "french fries" were invented not in france, but in belgium.
--> the initial assumption, which is refuted, is that french fries are from france.

This is very helpful Ron--I have been confusing on this topic.

In addition, I want to ask

1. whether it is considered parallel, if I add some subject in between the but also, such as The author not only published her paper, but SHE also won a prize. ? or The drug not only kills the bacteria, but IT also kills white cells?

2. Your explanation in the later part VERY CLEARLY clarified "not only...but also...", 'not only...but...", "not .... but...". Would you please help to have a similar explanation on this situation as: The drug kills the bacteria, but it also kills white cells.--I felt that "but (also)" used in such situation seems carry different meaning/relationship than the normal 'not only...but also...'. But on the other hand, we can make the sentence as The drug not only kills the bacteria, but also kills white cells. Do they have the same meaning? -- I thought I made this example out of the GMATPrep SC "Not only did the systematic clearing of forests ...."

3. I guess these two are wrong, since they are not on your list "not only....also...", "not....but also..."? Any other variations allowed or not allowed?

[RonPurewal]

1. whether it is considered parallel, if I add some subject in between the but also, such as The author not only published her paper, but SHE also won a prize. ? or The drug not only kills the bacteria, but IT also kills white cells?

nope. not parallel.
remember -- grammatical elements that FOLLOW parallel signals (not including modifiers/adjectives/adverbs, which can be neglected in considering grammar unless they ARE the whole parallel structures) must be parallel.
in that example:
following the signal not is "published her paper" -- notice that you don't have to consider "only" in this analysis, since it's an adverb and is therefore grammatically disposable
following the signal but is "SHE (also) won..."
these aren't parallel.
a subject is clearly not a grammatically disposable element (modifier), so there's no way in which these constructions can be considered parallel.

2. Your explanation in the later part VERY CLEARLY clarified "not only...but also...", 'not only...but...", "not .... but...". Would you please help to have a similar explanation on this situation as: The drug kills the bacteria, but it also kills white cells.--I felt that "but (also)" used in such situation seems carry different meaning/relationship than the normal 'not only...but also...'. But on the other hand, we can make the sentence as The drug not only kills the bacteria, but also kills white cells. Do they have the same meaning? -- I thought I made this example out of the GMATPrep SC "Not only did the systematic clearing of forests ...."

well, both of those are grammatically correct, but one makes sense and the other one doesn't. the key observation here is that killing the bacteria is GOOD, but that killing white blood cells is BAD.
therefore,
The drug not only kills the bacteria but also kills white cells (note: no comma necessary) --> this doesn't make sense. see boldfaced point #1 above; the construction "not only ... but also" should only be used when the two things actually reinforce each other (i.e., have SIMILAR effects/contexts). those are opposites -- one good, one bad -- so the context here is inappropriate.
for instance,
The drugs not only kills the bacteria but also alleviates joint pain --> this one makes sense, since both effects described are positive.

your example would be better written with just "but":
The drug kills the bacteria but also kills white cells.
that makes sense.

3. I guess these two are wrong, since they are not on your list "not only....also...", "not....but also..."? Any other variations allowed or not allowed?

the first of these could work, if there were some other transition signal (e.g. a semicolon) to replace the missing "but".
for instance:
The Acme Battery Corporation does not only make batteries; it also makes battery accessories, such as chargers.
in this case, the meaning is largely the same as that of "not only ... but also..."

the second of these doesn't seem logical under any circumstances that i can think of.

[Mymisc]

Thank you very much Ron for the thorough explanation.

About "not only...also...", I copied one SC problem from my MGMAT CAT. My original understanding from the CAT explanation is that the given sentence was not correct because "not only...also..." is not a correct form. Now combining all information, I concluded that the form "not only...also..." is acceptable, but the way used in the follwoing sentence breaks the parallelism. Am I right?

Not only did Christopher Columbus refuse to accept the conventional wisdom that the earth was flat, he also pressed relentlessly for royal support for his westward voyage to Asia, finally receiving approval and financing from King Ferdinand of Spain in 1492 after several rejections.

Additionally, I now found "not...but RATHER...'. Is this the same as 'not...but...'

Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

Thank you very much Ron for the thorough explanation.

About "not only...also...", I copied one SC problem from my MGMAT CAT. My original understanding from the CAT explanation is that the given sentence was not correct because "not only...also..." is not a correct form. Now combining all information, I concluded that the form "not only...also..." is acceptable, but the way used in the follwoing sentence breaks the parallelism. Am I right?

"not only ... also" doesn't make grammatical sense; the inclusion of the conjunction "but" is of the utmost importance. if you don't have this conjunction, then the sentence thus created becomes a run-on -- a lot like just trying to connect two sentences with a comma, or just trying to stick them together without anything in between.
so, in order to avoid a run-on sentence construction, you need to have the conjunction "but".

even in the two parts that are connected are not complete clauses (such as "i ate not only a hamburger but also an omelette"), you still need to have the "but". in this sentence, the issue is no longer whether the construction is a run-on (since you are not trying to stick two complete sentences together anymore), but just whether parallelism is created properly. without the "but", you aren't signaling parallelism in the first place.

Additionally, I now found "not...but RATHER...'. Is this the same as 'not...but...'

grammatically, it's the same thing.
in terms of meaning/rhetoric it's essentially the same as just "not ... but", but with extra emphasis on the fact that you are replacing an expected possibility with a different reality.

[pellucide]

This thread is one of the GEMS from this forum. Thanks for the clear-cut explanation.

[RonPurewal]

This thread is one of the GEMS from this forum.

if that's a joke referring to diamonds (which are mentioned in the sentence), then nice job. haha

[pellucide]

if that's a joke referring to diamonds (which are mentioned in the sentence), then nice job. haha

The pun was intended. It is a clear-cut GEM
Nonetheless, the metaphor is very appropriate for the thread.

[ChrisB]

Hi,

Nice pun. You're very welcome!

-Chris

[shankar245]

Crystal clear post !.

But I have a small clarification in the example you provided.

the small child was relieved to hear that the rustling under the bed was caused not by a ghost but by his pet cat.


Are the parts high lighted parallel?
We have

by a ghost --> By + object
by his pet cat-->By + pronoun +object.

So when the right most part gets locked in, the pronoun also gets locked so should the left part must also have a pronoun right?

Apologies if my doubts are dumb!.

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

Crystal clear post !.

But I have a small clarification in the example you provided.

the small child was relieved to hear that the rustling under the bed was caused not by a ghost but by his pet cat.


Are the parts high lighted parallel?
We have

by a ghost --> By + object
by his pet cat-->By + pronoun +object.

So when the right most part gets locked in, the pronoun also gets locked so should the left part must also have a pronoun right?

no. if anything were this strict, it would basically be impossible to write anything with descriptive language.

basically, as long as 2 parallel structures have the same basic form / grammatical role -- irrespective of add-ons like modifiers -- they're legitimately parallel structures.

e.g.

i have a truck and a bicycle.
--> parallel

i have a big, red, rusty old truck, which has been driven over 250,000 miles, and a bicycle.
--> still parallel.

[Haibara]

the writer was not only mortified by her mistake but was determined to correct it in print.
--> INCORRECT

Wonderful explanation of Ron. Thx
I just want to ask one minor question to complete my understanding on this issue.
In this thread paleontologist-stephen-jay-gould-has-argued-that-many-t1413.html?hilit=paleontologist%20stephen%20jay%20gould%20has%20argued

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

In the above thread, you said "are not ..., but are ...."was acceptable. Since you also said "there is really one base structure here, which is 'not...but...'" , So could it be acceptable to say:

The writer was not only mortified by her mistake but was determined to correct it in print.

I know you have put INCORRECT there. But I just want be more sure about it . Thanks, MGMAT experts.

[RonPurewal]

Hi,
If you have a question about another thread, please post it on that thread. Thanks.

[Haibara]

The writer was not only mortified by her mistake but was determined to correct it in print.
--> INCORRECT

Sorry，Ron. But I think my question should be in this thread. Because I'm quoting the sentence you said at the 12th floor in this thread. I'm asking whether " was not only .... but was ...." could be acceptable based on the rule you said in another thread, which you believed my question should be in. I am really not asking a question regarding another thread. Please take a look. Thx

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.
(D) because they enhance reproduction or survival, but are