5 Problems with Parallelism - DailyWritingTips

5 Problems with Parallelism

Posted: 07 Jul 2012 05:09 AM PDT

1. It was a serious distraction and threat to more meaningful reform efforts.

Something is wrong with this sentence. To diagnose the problem, remove one of the
noun phrases from the beginning of the sentence and determine whether the remaining
statement is still correct, then replace it and remove the other one. It was a serious
threat to more meaningful reform efforts is correct, but It was a serious distraction
to more meaningful reform efforts is jarring because the preposition is not
idiomatically appropriate. The noun phrases are supported by different prepositions,
so they cannot share the word to; assign the correct preposition to each one: It was a
serious distraction from and threat to more meaningful reform efforts.
Should the word threat be preceded by the article a to make it parallel with
distraction? No, because serious applies to both nouns, and an additional article would
isolate threat from the shared adjective. Also, the phrase and threat to appears to be
parenthetical, but its not necessarily necessary to set it off by commas, parentheses,
or em dashes.
However, enclosing it in parentheses suggests a whispering insinuation, and using em
dashes would signal a provocative interjection, so the context might merit either
parenthetical strategy. In either case, though, threat should be assigned a repetition of
serious It was a serious distraction from (and a serious threat to) more meaningful
reform efforts or a distinct adjective (It was a serious distraction from and a
grave threat to more meaningful reform efforts.)
2. Elected officials and activists representing forty-five environmental groups
attended the event.
When two or more nouns or noun phrases follow one or more adjectives (as in the
previous example), the assumption is that the modifying word or words applies to
each noun. In this case, however, the subject consists of the elements elected
officials and activists representing forty-five environmental groups linked by a
conjunction, not elected officials (representing forty-five environmental groups)
and (elected) activists representing forty-five environmental groups joined by and.
To clarify this distinction, recast the sentence: Activists representing forty-five
environmental groups, as well as elected officials, attended the event.
3. He has to be, if not the, one of the stupidest people in TV news.
The basic statement here is He has to be one of the stupidest people in TV news,
but the writer has failed in an attempt to suggest the superlative as well, awkwardly
implying also that he has to be the stupidest person in TV news. (The superlative is
the ultimate form of an adjective, more extreme than the basic form stupid, in this
case and the comparative, stupider.)

But if not the collides with one of the; the unstated and incorrect complete
thought is, He has to be the stupidest people in TV news. To smooth out this
disjointed sentence, introduce the superlative first in a complete thought, and then
retreat to the milder criticism in a following modifying phrase: He has to be if not the
stupidest person in TV news, then one of the stupidest.
Note that a comma does not follow be, because doing so would imply that two
commas are necessary to set if not the stupidest person in TV news off from the
basic sentence He has to be then one of the stupidest, and thats a faulty
grammatical analysis. This sentence is constructed from a simple if, then
foundation, so use a single comma to separate the two propositions.
4. He kept a house there as well as homes in rural Oxfordshire, England, and
Miami.
This sentence implies that the subject kept three additional homes: one in
Oxfordshire, one in England, and one in Miami. (It also incorrectly suggests that, as in
the second example above, a single adjective applies to all nouns that follow.) What
the writer meant, as we determine momentarily which is one moment too late is
that one additional residence is located in Oxfordshire, England, and another is in
Miami.
When one or more city, state or city, nation constructions are associated with a
city reference, the sentence must be revised to clarify the hierarchy of referents.
One solution is to distance the two objects with proprietary prepositions: He kept a
house there as well as homes in rural Oxfordshire, England, and in Miami. Another,
clearer choice is to do so but also place the simpler referent first: He kept a house
there as well as homes in Miami and in rural Oxfordshire, England.
5. The company was to be paid between $300 and $400 million.
This you know what I meant bungle is inoffensive but incorrect, and should be
corrected on principle because a similar but more egregiously ambiguous construction
would definitely merit revision, so why be inconsistent and excuse one but not the
other? The two figures in question are $300 million and $400 million, and for the sake
of clarity, the first instance of million should not be elided: The company was to be
paid between $300 million and $400 million.
The same principle applies if the range is separated by the word to: The company
was to be paid $300 million to $400 million. However, when the sentence does not
apply to orders of magnitude Compliance ranged from 50 to 75 percent the
operative word need not be repeated, because no ambiguity about the relation of the
first number to the second one exists.