no.

... and you shouldn't be worrying about that in the first place.
read here:
post59386.html#p59386

Hi Instructors ,

I approached this problem in the following way :
1) Eliminated C ) as it is using having.
2) Indicates that is an idiom ...so Choices A ) and B ) are out.
3) there is lack of parallelism in D ) for the parallel marker AND
4) There is perfect parallelism in E ) for the parallel marker OR

actually, all of your eliminations have some element of truth but are all flawed in some way:

1) the word "having" is not always wrong, but it is in this case. make sure you know why..

2) you should not get rid of answer choices because other choices have idioms you like. get rid of them because they are wrong on their own. the problem is that if you indicate few people that means you're pointing them out..

3) D is 100% parallel; its parallelism just creates an absurd meaning..

4) don't ever pick an answer choice because it gets something right. pick it because all the others are wrong..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

Hi - I have one question regarding the parallelism in option D.

D. that few people have significantly reduced the amount of driving they do and are not making

1. Have reduced is not parallel to are not making right?
2. Does the helping verb "have" apply to the 2nd part?

i.e. - have significantly reduced and (have) are not making?

So if the 2nd parts has no complete verb then we can assume that the helping verb from the 1st part is applicable to the 2nd part

Ex - few people have significantly reduced the amount of driving they do or [have significantly] made

And If the 2nd part has a complete verb then the helping verb from the 1st half do not apply to the 2nd part.

Ex - She is determined to go to the concert and (NO IS) rated the band 10 on a scale of 10

Cheers

Pls, explain the use of "few" and "nor" in A. I think it wrong but not understand why. pls, help.

i have questions about the usage of few and nor in this problem.
1.i think that "few" always means negative, so whenever "few" is used in a sentence ,the real meaning the sentence is that the number of the thing described by "few" is zero and so the sentence is actually a negative sentence. basing on the thought mentioned above , i chose E because i remember that we have to use "or" to connect parallel parts of the sentence in a negative sentence.
am i thinking right?

2.in A and C, i notice that the sentences use "nor",is it correctly used here?and is there any key point when we meet "nor" in the sentences?
Ron, experts, pls help. thank you so much.

3.and one more question is about the tense in the correct sentence.

"few people have significantly reduced the amount of driving they do or made fuel efficiency a priority when shopping for cars."

is the "made fuel blah blah blah" simple past tense here?
and i am a little confused about whether i could regard the sentence as one with the word "have" omitted? just like this:

"few people have significantly reduced the amount of driving they do or (have) made fuel efficiency a priority when shopping for cars."

and allow me to dig further about this question, in parallel parts of the sentences, could i omit auxiliary verbs?

if you're being literal here, you're wrong; if you're just making an analogy between two constructions, you're right.

what i mean is this:
you wrote "the real meaning is that the number ... is zero".
hopefully you didn't mean this in a literal sense; that is, i hope it's clear that "few" means, well, few (= "not many"), not zero.
if you say i have eaten few starchy foods this month, then you are NOT implying that you have eaten zero starchy foods. in fact, you are implying that the number is small, but definitely nonzero. if the number were actually zero, then "few" would be an inaccurate description.

on the other hand, if your point is to highlight the idea that "few NOUNs" works in the same way as "no NOUNs", then, yes, that's correct.



in general, "nor" is used to construct another negative idea that's parallel to the first one. i have absolutely no idea how to articulate a "rule" for this, so, instead, i'll just throw a bunch of examples at you.

i have not completed the exam, nor will i be able to finish it tonight.
--> 2 negative verbs

no one has ever climbed that tower, nor has anyone ever scaled this fence.
--> 2 statements about "no one". (i've never thought consciously about this before, but i guess you can say that "nor ... anyone" is equivalent, and thus parallel, to "no one".)

few people have ever climbed that tower, nor have many (people) scaled this fence.
--> 2 statements about "few". (again, this is my first time thinking about this consciously, but i guess you can say that "nor ... many" is equivalent, and hence parallel, to "few".)



i don't understand what this questions means. sorry.



same tense both times. (the tenses have to be the same, because the timeframes and contexts are identical.)

you shouldn't think of it as "omission", because it's not omission -- it's just a parallel structure that starts after the word "have" (and also after "significantly").
i.e.,
[i]few people have significantly ...
1/
reduced xxxxxxx
OR
2/
made xxxxxxx

the "have", which lies outside the parallel structure, applies to both parts of it.



in general, this question is misguided. as in the case presented above, the things you're viewing as "omissions" are not actually omissions.