We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Up to 90+ points GMAT score improvement guarantee

The best guarantee you’ll find

Our Premium and Ultimate plans guarantee up to 90+ points score increase or your money back.

Master each section of the test

Comprehensive GMAT prep

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Schedule-free studying

Learn on the go

Study whenever and wherever you want with our iOS and Android mobile apps.

Sentence Correction: Redundancy - Double Conjunctions or Phrases

When in 1889 Andrew Carnegie published his essay "Wealth" in the June and December issues of the North American Review, his ideas about philanthropic giving for the common weal were applauded by the public, but there was much criticism from theological circles too.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice is illogical. The two parallel clauses are not logically parallel.

The construction A but B requires that the two parts of the parallelism create a relation of logical contrast. In this answer choice clause A tells us that his ideas were applauded (=praised) (subject+verb)While clause B tells us that there was criticism (=the opposite of praise)and so does express a contrast, the contrasting clause is logically incomplete and therefore confusing. Was the criticism of the man Carnegie, or of his ideas?

Since clause A told us that the ideas received praise, we logically expect clause B to tell us that the ideas were criticized. But in this answer choice subject ideas was left out of clause B, and instead criticism becomes the subject -- we have no way of understanding that the ideas were criticized.

There is another answer choice that correctly uses parallelism of clauses to express the logical relation A but B. Look for it.

Well done!

This answer choice corrects the Parallelism mistake in the original question by changing the illogical parallelism of clauses (his ideas...were applauded//there was much criticism) to a correct parallelism of verbs (were applauded//were greatly criticized). In the corrected sentence the subject of the two verbs is his ideas about philanthropic giving.

Incorrect.

While this answer choice corrects the Parallelism mistake in the original question, by changing the illogical parallelism of clauses (his ideas...were applauded//there was much criticism) to a correct parallelism of verbs (was applauded//much criticized), it is grammatically incorrect.

The plural subject ideas does not agree with the singular verb was.

Incorrect.

This answer choice is grammatically incorrect. The word although must always come before a clause, but in the corrected sentence it appears before a fragment that lacks a conjugated verb: there being much criticism from theological circles.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

While this answer choice corrects the Parallelism mistake in the original sentence by creating a logical parallelism of clauses (his ideas...were applauded//they [=his ideas] were much criticized)) the corrected sentence is illogical and redundant.

By placing the word although at the beginning of the underlined section, the corrected sentence violates the logical parallel structure A but B. Using two opposition conjunctions when referring to the same relation is redundant.

Stop Sign: Though/Although/Even though/Despite/In spite of... later followed by  but/yet/however/still/nevertheless

his ideas about philanthropic giving for the common weal were applauded by the public, but there was much criticism from theological circles too
his ideas about philanthropic giving for the common weal were applauded by the public but greatly criticized by theological circles too
his ideas about philanthropic giving for the common weal was applauded by the public but much criticized by theological circles too
although there being much criticism from theological circles, his ideas about philanthropic giving for the common weal were also applauded by the public
although his ideas about philanthropic giving for the common weal were applauded by the public, but they were much criticized from theological circles too