OG (10th ed) - SC - #221

[Saurabh Malpani]

221. Eating saltwater fish may significantly reduce the risk of heart attacks and also aid for sufferers of rheumatoid arthritis and asthma, according to
three research studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

A) significantly reduce the risk of heart attacks and also aid for
B )be significant in reducing the risk of heart attacks and aid for
C )significantly reduce the risk of heart attacks and aid
D )cause a significant reduction in the risk of heart attacks and aid to
E) significantly reduce the risk of heart attacks as well as aiding

Source OG 10th Edition q 221.

Please explain the explanation given in OG as well please add some easy to understand points.

Thanks
Saurabh Malpani

[esledge]

Hi Saurabh,

The explanation in the OG Verbal Review book is a little better than the 10th edition explanation, but as I see it, this problem is about 1) parallelism and 2) the unintended meaning caused by the bad parallelism.

To illustrate, I will write the choices with some of the modifiers (that is, the descriptive information) in parentheses, and the parallel elements in bold. Note that we have an "X and Y" parallel structure in each choice, where X and Y must be structurally and logically similar:

A) "Eating saltwater fish may significantly reduce the risk (of heart attacks) and also aid (for sufferers of rheumatoid arthritis and asthma),..." The sentence illogically says that eating fish may reduce the risk and reduce aid. Because of its placement in the sentence, "aid" is a noun in this case. The "and also" is unnecessarily redundant; "and" would be sufficient.

B) "Eating saltwater fish may be significant in reducing the risk (of heart attacks) and aid (for sufferers of rheumatoid arthritis and asthma),..." The sentence illogically says that eating fish may be significant in reducing the risk and reducing aid. Because of its placement in the sentence, "aid" is a noun in this case. "May be significant in reducing" is unnecessarily wordy; it would be more concise to say "may significantly reduce."

C) "Eating saltwater fish may significantly reduce the risk (of heart attacks) and aid sufferers (of rheumatoid arthritis and asthma),..." This sentence logically states that eating fish may reduce the risk and may aid sufferers. Because of its placement in the sentence, "aid" is a verb. CORRECT.

D) "Eating saltwater fish may cause a significant reduction in the risk (of heart attacks) and aid (to sufferers of rheumatoid arthritis and asthma),..." This sentence illogically states that eating fish may cause a reduction in the risk and a reduction in aid. Because of its placement in the sentence, "aid" is a noun in this case. "May cause a significant reduction in" is unnecessarily wordy; it would be more concise to say "may significantly reduce."

E) "Eating saltwater fish may significantly reduce the risk (of heart attacks) as well as aiding sufferers (of rheumatoid arthritis and asthma),..." There is not parallelism between the two things that eating fish may do: "reduce the risk" is not structurally similar to "aiding sufferers." While the 11th edition of the OG states this is not incorrect, merely less preferable to choice C, I disagree. "Aiding sufferers" is incorrect: "Eating saltwater fish may significantly...aiding sufferers..." is not the correct form. Finally, "as well as" is wordier than "and."