Have you met our tutor Peyton Manning yet? 😆 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a7ySm7d0mbvUe4E.html

In option A 'extending' is not used as a present progressive verb. It is used as a present participle modifier. Here 'spawned' is parallel to 'extending'. Both are modifiers.

This is what im wondering. Extending is an adjective but extended is a verb like spawned

Extended by whom? Thats what make me eliminate that option. Extending doesnt require someone/something to do the act, could be the fungus itself

@@MrGallagherRocks Why is by whom important? Could be an adjective. Like an extended lunch hour

Extended if you take as verb ed modifier will modify closest noun I.e rootlike tentacles not making meaning

Because Verb-ed will tell you that the event is over. However, the Fungus's description holds good at present. Hence, verb-ing form describes the extent to which the roots are spread out. Hope this helps!

But it spawned 10000 years ago but it extended over time, so it isn't exactly parallel. I don't understand what is wrong with option B as it could refer to the giant fungus rather than the filigree which is grammatically right .

@@rohansrinivas9946 I was gonna say the same thing. why not just say both ''spawned' and ''extends'' are verbs. I have no issue with one being in the past tense while the other is present

Structurally, we could do that. If you treat "extended" as a modifer, it could be parallel to "spawned." However, we run into a meaning issue if we do that. If we treat "extended" as an -ed modifier, it seems to suggest that there's some other thing doing the extending. So some external force is actively stretching out the fungus and its tentacles? The giant fungus was spawned "by a single fertilised spore", but it doesn't make sense to say there's anything that could have "extended" the tentacles "for more than 30 acres in the soil of a Michigan forest." For this reason, we can eliminate (C) as a possible answer in this question. Instead, you can picture an interwoven filigree of mushrooms and rootlike tentacles extending throughout the soil underneath a forest, so "extending" makes perfect sense as a modifier. I hope that helps!

Take a look at the video starting at timestamp 14:30 for an in-depth discussion of this issue. The short answer is that you're right: you could have a grammatically parallel sentence if you end the stem at "fungus that," and put the verbs "is" and "extends" parallel to one another. However, the parallelism in (A) makes more sense. It's just more logical to say that the rootlike tentacles are extending through the forest, rather than saying that the fungus as a whole is extending through the forest. That's one tricky thing about GMAT SC -- sometimes there is more than one grammatically correct option, and you have to then think about which option makes more sense than the others. I hope that helps a bit, and thank you so much for watching!

@@GMATNinjaTutoring Not to debate the experts too much here... but if we draw back to the "heart of the passage" lessons from videos past, what is the primary subject and focus of the statement? It is the giant fungus, not the descriptors of the giant fungus, aka. the tentacles. The tentacles are descriptors, sub-aspects if you will, no? They happen to be further described by their spawn timeframe, but it does not change the fact they are from a "lower hierarchy" of subject matter importance. Therefore if you are looking for the most correct parallelism in terms of meaning when they are both technically grammatically correct, would you not default to that of the primary function of the passage itself - the fungus? Not clear on why there is a preference for logical reasoning of the tentacles when considering this. I would argue the opposite that B is actually MORE correct in this case. Would love to understand further if possible. Thanks!

@@GMATNinjaTutoring Why can't both "spawned" and "extended" be treated as verbs?

Sorry for the slow response, Anurag! While each of those elements works with the stem "was" ("was friendly," "was polite," "was explaining"), it is very unlikely that you'd see a correct answer choice like this on the GMAT. That's because the first two items of the list -- "friendly" and "polite" -- are adjectives, while the third item -- "explaining" -- is part of the verb "was explaining." Functionally, the items are doing different things in your sentence, so it would almost certainly be incorrect to make them parallel to one another. I hope that helps!

You're correct that the word "extended" could be used as either a verb or a modifier. In this sentence, you could imagine a parallel structure where "spawned" and "extended" are both verb + ed modifiers. For instance: "...a giant fungus...SPAWNED by a single spore and EXTENDED for more than thirty acres." The problem is, the modifier "extended" is much less logical than the modifier "extending." The word "extending" makes it clear that we are describing a current state of affairs. If we said "extended," that would imply that the roots became "extended" at some specific moment in the past (like, all at once). Because "extending" is more logical, it's a better choice in this case. By contrast, notice that "spawned" is a much better modifier than "spawning." If we said the fungus was "spawning by a single spore," that would imply that it was currently spawning. But what we really want to say is that the fungus "spawned" at some specific moment in the past. Bottom line, sometimes -ing modifiers are better, and sometimes -ed modifiers -- it all depends on the context. I hope that helps!

In (D), "Jazz pianist" and "composer" are both describing Thelonious Monk, not two separate people. To see why, consider an example in which we really are discussing two different people: "A jazz pianist and the composer Thelonious Monk produced a body of work." Now, our subject consists of two individuals: 1) a jazz pianist and 2) the composer Thelonious Monk. Notice that if we were to rewrite the sentence without the second individual, it would still make perfect sense: "A jazz pianist produced a body of work." Now, if you're wondering whether (D), in fact, refers to two individuals, you could try the same game and drop the "second" individual to see if it makes sense: "Jazz pianist produced a body of work." That's no good. We need the article "a" if we are talking about a single jazz pianist by himself or herself. Similarly, we would say, "A GMAT tutor can be helpful," instead of "GMAT tutor can be helpful." Because there's no article in (D), we know that "jazz pianist" describes Thelonious Monk instead of referring to some other person. I hope that helps, and sorry for our slow response, Sanya!

I'm glad that we've been able to help a bit, @Shahzen! There are a total of 18 videos in the SC series right now, so the final video will be released next week. After that, we'll release new RC and CR videos weekly until those series are done. Have fun studying, and thank you for the kind words!

@@GMATNinjaTutoring This is really helpful. When are you releasing the videos for CR and RC?

@@hckonvicted The full RC video course is already published: kzfaq.info/sun/PLiaK8zyGGndlDghCtnUwhbPUU1qyJKcj0. We'll start releasing CR videos this Friday, and will release one each week until the full course is complete in mid-December. Enjoy!

@@GMATNinjaTutoring Thank you so much :)

Sorry for the slow reply, Harsh! You're right that there are two "ands" in question 1. Structurally, we have a small parallel structure within a bigger parallel structure. Consider this example: "Gus likes to eat kibbles AND string cheese AND to play at the dog park." The first "and" lists two nouns that Gus like to eat: "kibbles" and "string cheese." The second "and" lists two things that Gus likes to do: he likes "to eat" and "to play." The parallelism in this example is correct. The first "and" gives us a parallel list, nested inside the bigger list featuring the second "and." The parallelism in the mushroom example is very similar. The first "and" gives us a parallel structure that lists two nouns: "...filigree of mushrooms and rootlike tentacles." The second "and" is part of a larger structure that lists two modifiers: "spawned... and extending." I hope that helps!

Glad you're enjoying the videos, Aditya! Sorry for the slow response. Here is (C) as a whole: "Jazz pianist and composer Thelonious Monk, who produced a body of work rooted in the stride-piano tradition of Willie (The Lion) Smith and Duke Ellington, yet in many ways he stood apart from the mainstream jazz repertory." Looking at the structure of this sentence, we first get the subject: "Jazz pianist and composer Thelonious Monk" Then, we get a modifier that describes the subject: "WHO produced a body of work rooted in the stride-piano tradition of Willie (The Lion) Smith and Duke Ellington" Finally, we get a dependent clause: "YET in many ways he stood apart from the mainstream jazz repertory." The issue with this structure is that it's not a full sentence. There is no main verb to go along with the subject -- there's just some description, and then a dependent clause. This gives us a strong reason to eliminate (C). The structure of (D) does give us a main verb: "Jazz pianist and composer Thelonious Monk PRODUCED a body of work that was rooted..." By having the verb "produced" stand alone (instead of being tucked into a "who" modifier), (D) fixes the issue in (C). I hope that helps!

@GmatNinja, same question here. Extended is also modifier I think.

Thank you, Yash! It's a great thought. We've spent tons of hours experimenting with different forms of digital sketching over the years, just to avoid writing entire questions on the board. And we keep coming to the same conclusion: it's more natural to illustrate our thought processes on a whiteboard, with the question written out by hand. Yes, it's more work for us (and not all of us have gorgeous handwriting!) but I think it's a more authentic experience, in a way -- it feels more like actual tutoring. And that's basically what we want: think of this as the free version of one-on-one tutoring, with as much of the spontaneity and authenticity as we can convey in a recorded video. There are definitely some cool technologies out there, and I'm a fan of them for other educational purposes. But we've never felt like they work quite right for us when we're trying to illustrate the tangle of thoughts that enter test-takers' heads on GMAT questions. That was probably WAY more information than you needed, but I truly do appreciate the suggestion, and I'm sure that we'll experiment with it all again as the technologies continue to improve. Have fun studying, and thank you again for the kind words about the videos!

@@GMATNinjaTutoring wow, that's quite some thought process going into an aspect that probably doesn't register much for your audience. Great philosophy, and I think I agree :)

@@GMATNinjaTutoring I totally agree with you. Yes, the new technology makes it more presentable, but it lacks the human touch that in my opinion is essential for studying. Please don't get rid of the whiteboard!!

Here both 'spawned' and 'extending' act as a modifier. Both describes the fungus.

"-Ed" words can act as verbs or as modifiers. For example, in the sentence "I baked the cookies," "baked" is a verb. But if the sentence instead reads, "Baked in the oven, the cookies were delicious," "baked" is just there to describe the cookies. So, "baked" is a modifier (and "were" is the main verb in the sentence). "Spawned" in the official question is a modifier, just like "baked" in this example. For more on "ed" words, check out this article: gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topic-of-the-week-5-15-17-fun-with-ed-words-240280.html#p1852739. I hope that helps a bit!

@@GMATNinjaTutoring Hey GMATNinja! Are you planning to release 2 videos a week for the SC portion from next week ?..It is in demand and I just can't wait to see all videos being premiered at a frequency of twice a week!

​ @GMAT Ninja Tutoring +1. We want more videos quickly :)

@@GMATNinjaTutoring I understand the logic that "spawned" serves as a modifier, but by that same logic shouldn't "extended" also be a modifier? In my opinion, the parallelism stem begins at "tentacles". Thus, the "tentacles spawned by..." and "tentacles extended for.." seems more correct here.

Sorry for the slow response! Words ending in "-ing" can do several different things in a sentence. Check out the following video and article to learn more about how to work with "-ing" words: Video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iNOUo71kxpvLp6s.html Article: gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topic-of-the-week-that-ing-word-probably-isn-t-a-239780.html I hope that helps a bit!

Glad that you liked the video! And sorry for our slow response. There actually isn't only one way to "correct" a given sentence. Here, for instance, we could list three verbs in parallel: "The customer service representative WAS friendly, SEEMED polite, and EXPLAINED everything thoroughly." Alternatively, we could list three adjectives in parallel: "The customer service representative was FRIENDLY, POLITE, and THOROUGH." These options have slightly different meanings, but one isn't necessarily better than the other. So, as you go through SC questions, it's best not to get too attached to how YOU would correct the sentence -- instead, just evaluate the options that you're given and eliminate the ones that are wrong. I hope that helps!

In (D), "Jazz pianist" and "composer" are both describing Thelonious Monk, not two separate people. To see why, consider an example in which we really are discussing two different people: "A jazz pianist and the composer Thelonious Monk produced a body of work." Now, our subject consists of two individuals: 1) a jazz pianist and 2) the composer Thelonious Monk. Notice that if we were to rewrite the sentence without the second individual, it would still make perfect sense: "A jazz pianist produced a body of work." Now, if you're wondering whether (D), in fact, refers to two individuals, you could try the same game and drop the "second" individual to see if it makes sense: "Jazz pianist produced a body of work." That's no good. We need the article "a" if we are talking about a single jazz pianist by himself or herself. Similarly, we would say, "A GMAT tutor can be helpful," instead of "GMAT tutor can be helpful." Because there's no article in (D), we know that "jazz pianist" describes Thelonious Monk instead of referring to some other person. I hope that helps!