Parallelism issue or not?

[RijulN343]

" I have attached the modified readme file and have changed
the comma(,) with an apostrophe(‘) character as it was intended

Here the construction is "[Subject] [predicate] and [predicate] as [subordinate clause]"

I am unable to understand whether there is a flaw here regarding parallelism or not?
I think there is as the subordinate clause does not work if we just plug in first part. I don't know
when we plug into the root do we have to check full sentence construction or just plugging into the root.

I think if the as[subordinate] will be fine if it refers to both the parallel parts.
Please share your comments on this.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

I have attached the modified readme file and have changed
the comma(,) with an apostrophe(‘) character as it was intended

Where is this example from? Please remember that the rules GMAT uses for English are not rules that we follow all the time. We can't expect every sentence in English to follow the same style and grammar as GMAT problems.

There seems to be a parallel structure with a simple root phrase ("I"), and two parallel elements connected with "and". GMAT would certainly take issue with the idiom "change a comma with an apostrophe" (it would use "to"). But I don't understand the meaning of the part "as it was intended". As what was intended? By whom?

[RijulN343]

Hi Sage,

I constructed this sentence in a paragraph. While writing the sentence, I thought that can there be an issue of parallelism in such constructions.
I wanted to know that if we attach a subordinate clause to the second part, does it have to be parallel with both the parts or not?

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Sure, we can attach a subordinate clause to a parallel structure. Not everything has to be parallel. This example is fine:
I ate chips and drank beer with my friends.