SC:is descended or has descended ?

[RonPurewal]

i somehow find this bold portion confusing .i have seen your videos in which you have talked of parallelism with "AND" .is "comma +AND" not suppose to follow parallelism when it is joining two independent clauses ?

From a brief google search, I conclude that "independent clause" is just a fancy term for "complete sentence". So, it seems you're talking about
(complete sentence), and (complete sentence)

I don't know the terminology, so, sorry if this is not actually the issue you're talking about.

Basically, the deal with the construction above is this:

"- As long as the two sentences are actually complete sentences, that's good enough to be considered "parallel".

HOWEVER...
"- The two sentences should be structured as much like each other as possible, without distorting the intended meaning.

E.g.,

Professional photographers snapped pictures with their expensive cameras, and amateurs recorded video clips with their smartphones.

Professional photographers used their expensive cameras to snap pictures, and amateurs used their smartphones to record video clips.

Both of these are optimally parallel. (In the first one, both are "PERSON did Y thing with X equipment." In the second one, both are "PERSON used X equipment to do Y thing.")

A sentence that mixes these forms"”e.g., Professional photographers snapped pictures with their expensive cameras, and amateurs used their smartphones to record video clips"”is inferior to the ones above. It's not ungrammatical, but it's objectively worse than the examples in which the two parts are actually written the same way.

[RonPurewal]

my reasoning as why parallelism in A is nonsensical : to make a parallelism work we need to put"things" in parallel only when they are suppose to be parallel and only when "those things" can be listed as item 1 and item 2 in a parallel list .this is not happening in A (because the TWO BLUE portions in A are neither "things" that are suppose to be parallel nor they can be listed as item 1 and item 2 ,although the word "comma +AND" makes them parallel by default)

kindly confirm if my logic is correct
thanks and regards

Seems okay to me.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Hi Ron,

I actually wen't through this whole thread and still have a nagging feeling.

I narrowed it down to D and E and unfortunately chose D. I have a few questions:

1) In D, Elephant had descended and it's trunk evolved. I thought that past perfect(had descended) worked better because the elephant descended first and then it's trunk evolved. Why is that wrong?

2) I thought parallelism in D was better than E(which is obviously wrong since OA is E). I looked at parallelism in D as "the elephant ..." and "it's(the elephant) trunk". Aren't they both nouns? I know that this is discussed a little earlier but there still seem's to be a gap in the issue.

3)Additionally, when I look at parallelism in E, I see "the elephant" and "that it's trunk". I saw the "that" in the beginning of the idiom suggest that x and y and therefore thought it was redundant to put a "that" in the "y" portion of the clause. Why is that wrong?

4)What exactly does "that" refer to in the second part of the clause in E?

Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

1) In D, Elephant had descended and it's trunk evolved. I thought that past perfect(had descended) worked better because the elephant descended first and then it's trunk evolved. Why is that wrong?

First:

If you've read the whole thread, then you'll know that the only acceptable form is "is descended" (or other tenses of "is").

"Had descended", like just "descended", refers to downward vertical motion, not to evolutionary progress.

Second:

If you think about the context, you'll realize that you have these events backwards.

A "snorkel" is a thing used to breathe air while underwater. Therefore, "a kind of snorkel" clearly must be something that evolved while the elephant's predecessor was still living in the sea (= "an aquatic animal")"”i.e., before it evolved into an elephant.

[RonPurewal]

2) I thought parallelism in D was better than E(which is obviously wrong since OA is E). I looked at parallelism in D as "the elephant ..." and "it's(the elephant) trunk". Aren't they both nouns? I know that this is discussed a little earlier but there still seem's to be a gap in the issue.

As stated earlier in the thread, D is constructed ambiguously.

It's not clear whether D means...
"- (a) there's evidence to suggest that thing #1 is true, and (b) thing #2 is true;
- there's evidence to suggest (a) that thing #1 is true AND (b) that thing #2 is true.

Putting "that" in front of both parts narrows the interpretation down to just the second of these.

[RonPurewal]

3)Additionally, when I look at parallelism in E, I see "the elephant" and "that it's trunk". I saw the "that" in the beginning of the idiom suggest that x and y and therefore thought it was redundant to put a "that" in the "y" portion of the clause. Why is that wrong?

This question is addressed by the explanation for #2 above.

4)What exactly does "that" refer to in the second part of the clause in E?

This question is also addressed by the same part.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

It's not clear whether D means...
"- (a) there's evidence to suggest that thing #1 is true, and (b) thing #2 is true;
- there's evidence to suggest (a) that thing #1 is true AND (b) that thing #2 is true.

Putting "that" in front of both parts narrows the interpretation down to just the second of these.

This is what I was missing. Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Sure.

[HanzZ]

"Its truck originally evolving" in choice B is an absolute phrase. It is not wrong per se

Ilyana, thank you for the detailed reply. It's very helpful.

[lindaliu9273]

Hi Ron,
I have a question about E, the clause before "and" is in present tense, while that after is in past tense. I assume that the two clauses should be in the same tense. There is no legitimate reason to use present to describe sth happened and finished in the past.
Thanks a million~

"is descended from" is indeed a description of a condition in the present. it's the same thing as "is a descendant of".

cf. my friend is a direct descendant of George Washington.
you wouldn't say "was", unless my friend is dead.
same thing with the elephant - if you write "the elephant was..." in this case, you are actually implying that the elephant is extinct.

Hi Ron,
I still have a question about this. If the clause before and after 'and' are all actions instead of conditions, should the clause be the same?

The 2nd question: Does "have found evidence that" indicate that the clause should also be present perfect?

Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

I still have a question about this. If the clause before and after 'and' are all actions instead of conditions, should the clause be the same?

Sorry, I don't understand what you are asking. Can you give an example, please?

[RonPurewal]

The 2nd question: Does "have found evidence that" indicate that the clause should also be present perfect?

Thank you!

No. "They have found evidence that..." can be paired with ANY tense.
People have found evidence that dinosaurs built cities.
People have found evidence that Smith had never met the person who killed him.
People have found evidence that we will all die in 5 years.

There can be "evidence" of things in any conceivable timeframe, so any tense can appear here.

[lindaliu9273]

Hi Ron，
Sorry for the confusement. I was actually asking a question about the explanation below. If the clause before and after 'and' are all actions instead of conditions, should the tense be the same? Because I remember in most questions I have done, the tense before and after "and" are the same.

Hi Ron,
I have a question about E, the clause before "and" is in present tense, while that after is in past tense. I assume that the two clauses should be in the same tense. There is no legitimate reason to use present to describe sth happened and finished in the past.
Thanks a million~

"is descended from" is indeed a description of a condition in the present. it's the same thing as "is a descendant of".

cf. my friend is a direct descendant of George Washington.
you wouldn't say "was", unless my friend is dead.
same thing with the elephant - if you write "the elephant was..." in this case, you are actually implying that the elephant is extinct.

[RonPurewal]

If the two timeframes are actually the same, then the tenses should be the same.

If the timeframes are different, then the tenses can be different.

Bobby joined the Air Force in 1995 and will be discharged in 2025.
"”> First verb = past; second verb = future. It would clearly be absurd to use the same tense for both of these verbs.

[shweta]

Hi Ron,

If I were to alter Choice B "that has suggested the elephant descended from an aquatic animal, its trunk originally evolving" to say "that has suggested that the elephant is descended from..."- For the lack of a better option, would that be correct?

I get stuck with the usage of "that" after certain verbs such as Suggest/suggesting, Assume/assuming etc. Is it essential to use that after such verbs?

Can you please refer a source wherein I can do some self study on the topic as well.

Thanks a ton !