Adult Literacy Advanced Quiz: Parallel Structure
10 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Parallel StructureQuestion 1 of 10

A neighborhood association surveyed residents about a proposed water-main replacement. The draft report states: "Residents were more concerned about how long repairs would take than the projected cost." The writer intends to compare two questions residents had: the duration of the repairs and the amount the repairs would cost.

Which revision makes the intended comparison most precise and parallel?

Residents were more concerned about the repair schedule than how much the project would eventually cost.
Residents were more concerned with how long repairs would take than the project's projected cost.
Residents' concern focused more on how long repairs would take instead of the project's projected cost.
Residents were more concerned about how long repairs would take than about how much the repairs would cost.
← Back to quizzes

Adult Literacy Advanced Quiz

Adult Literacy Advanced Quiz: Parallel Structure

Practice Parallel Structure in Adult Literacy Advanced with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Parallel Structure, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Adult Literacy Advanced.

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

A neighborhood association surveyed residents about a proposed water-main replacement. The draft report states: "Residents were more concerned about how long repairs would take than the projected cost." The writer intends to compare two questions residents had: the duration of the repairs and the amount the repairs would cost.

Which revision makes the intended comparison most precise and parallel?

  1. Residents were more concerned about the repair schedule than how much the project would eventually cost.
  2. Residents were more concerned with how long repairs would take than the project's projected cost.
  3. Residents' concern focused more on how long repairs would take instead of the project's projected cost.
  4. Residents were more concerned about how long repairs would take than about how much the repairs would cost. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a sentence compares two things, both sides of the comparison should use the same grammatical structure — this is called parallel construction. Whenever you see a comparison question, ask yourself: do both sides of "more than" look and function the same way? The intended comparison is between how long repairs would take (a duration) and how much repairs would cost (an amount). Notice that both ideas are noun clauses beginning with "how." For the sentence to be truly parallel, both sides should mirror each other in structure. Choice D — "Residents were more concerned about how long repairs would take than about how much the repairs would cost" — nails this perfectly. Both sides use "about + how [adjective] [subject] would [verb]," making the comparison clear, balanced, and grammatically equal. This is your correct answer. Choice A fails parallelism because one side is a clause ("how long repairs would take") while the other becomes a noun phrase ("how much the project would eventually cost") — the structures don't match. Choice B compares a clause ("how long repairs would take") against a simple noun phrase ("the project's projected cost"), which is an even sharper mismatch. Choice C compounds the problem: it swaps the standard comparative word "than" for "instead of," which signals contrast rather than comparison, and still suffers from mismatched structures on each side. A handy tip: whenever you see "more...than" in an answer choice, mentally check whether the phrase or clause before "than" and the one after "than" could swap places without breaking the sentence. If they can't, the construction probably isn't parallel.

Question 2

A foundation will evaluate community-grant proposals according to three separate questions: Does the proposal address a documented need? Is the budget realistic? Can the proposed outcomes be measured?

Which sentence combines the three evaluation questions into the clearest parallel series?

  1. The panel will assess whether each proposal addresses a documented need, a realistic budget, and outcomes that can be measured.
  2. The panel will assess the community need, whether the proposed budget is realistic, and the measurement of proposed outcomes.
  3. The panel will assess whether each proposal addresses a documented need, whether its budget is realistic, and whether its outcomes can be measured. (correct answer)
  4. The panel will assess how each proposal addresses a documented need, whether its budget is realistic, and outcomes that can be measured.
Explanation: When a sentence lists three or more related items, they must follow the same grammatical structure — this is called parallel construction. In this question, you're combining three yes/no evaluation questions, so the cleanest approach is to introduce each one the same way. Answer C achieves perfect parallelism by repeating the word "whether" before each of the three clauses: whether each proposal addresses a documented need, whether its budget is realistic, and whether its outcomes can be measured. Each clause follows the same "whether + subject + verb" pattern, making the sentence easy to read and logically consistent. Answer A breaks parallelism because the first item (addresses a documented need) is a verb phrase, while the second (a realistic budget) is just a noun phrase — the verb "whether" structure disappears mid-sentence, creating an inconsistent mix of forms. Answer B abandons the "whether" structure entirely for the first item (the community need), turning it into a bare noun phrase before switching to a full clause for the second item. The three items follow three different grammatical patterns, making the list feel disjointed and awkward. Answer D starts promisingly but mixes how with whether — these are different types of questions. "How" asks about method or degree; "whether" asks yes or no. Combining them suggests the panel is asking different types of questions about each item, which distorts the meaning. Study tip: When checking a list for parallelism, underline the opening word or phrase of each item. If they don't all match grammatically, the sentence needs revision. On this exam, parallelism errors often hide in the middle of a long list — so always check every item, not just the first and last.

Question 3

A transit planner wants to emphasize two expected benefits of a revised bus route: less crowding and shorter transfer times. The planner must use the paired construction "not only . . . but also."

Which sentence expresses both benefits with the clearest parallel structure?

  1. The revised route will not only reduce crowding at Central Station but also shorten transfer times for suburban commuters. (correct answer)
  2. Not only the revised route will reduce crowding at Central Station, but it will also shorten transfer times for commuters.
  3. The revised route will reduce not only crowding at Central Station, but commuters will also experience shorter transfer times.
  4. The revised route not only reduces crowding at Central Station, but shorter transfer times will also result for commuters.
Explanation: When you see a paired construction like "not only . . . but also," your job is to check that the words or phrases following each half of the pair belong to the same grammatical category — both verbs, both nouns, both phrases. This is called parallel structure, and it's what makes the sentence logically and grammatically balanced. In choice A, "not only" is followed by the verb phrase "reduce crowding at Central Station," and "but also" is followed by the verb phrase "shorten transfer times for suburban commuters." Both slots contain infinitive verb phrases doing the same grammatical job, so the construction is perfectly parallel. A is the correct answer. Choice B places "not only" before the entire subject-verb unit ("the revised route will reduce crowding"), then awkwardly shifts to a separate clause after "but." This breaks both the grammatical pairing and the sentence's natural flow — the two halves no longer mirror each other structurally. Choice C starts the "not only" correctly by attaching it to "crowding at Central Station," but then abandons the paired construction entirely. Instead of completing it with "but also [noun phrase]," it pivots to a full new clause ("commuters will also experience..."), which destroys the parallel and buries the connection between the two benefits. Choice D pairs "not only reduces crowding" with "shorter transfer times will also result," mixing a verb phrase with a subject-verb clause. The two halves are grammatically mismatched, making the sentence awkward and unbalanced. A quick tip: whenever you evaluate paired constructions ("not only...but also," "either...or," "both...and"), mentally label what comes after each connector. If the labels don't match, the structure is broken.

Question 4

A transportation committee compared two possible strategies for reducing downtown traffic: expanding evening bus service and reducing parking fees. Members concluded that the first strategy would be more effective.

Which sentence states the committee's conclusion using the most effective parallel comparison?

  1. The committee judged expanding evening bus service to be more effective than a policy that would reduce downtown parking fees.
  2. The committee judged that expanding evening bus service was more effective compared with downtown parking fees being reduced.
  3. The committee judged the expansion of evening bus service more effective than reducing downtown parking fees would be.
  4. The committee judged expanding evening bus service to be more effective than reducing downtown parking fees. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a sentence compares two things, both sides of the comparison must be grammatically parallel — meaning they should mirror each other in structure. This question tests whether you can recognize clean, balanced comparisons versus awkward or uneven ones. The clearest comparison pairs two actions in the same grammatical form. In option D, "expanding evening bus service" and "reducing downtown parking fees" are both present participles (verb + -ing), making the comparison balanced and easy to follow. The sentence flows naturally: the committee judged expanding one thing to be more effective than reducing another. That's your correct answer. Option A creates an imbalance by pairing the action "expanding evening bus service" against a noun phrase — "a policy that would reduce downtown parking fees." You're now comparing an action to a policy, not action to action. The extra words also dilute the comparison unnecessarily. Option B uses "compared with" instead of "than," which is grammatically awkward after "more effective." It also shifts to a passive, clunky construction: "downtown parking fees being reduced" doesn't match the active phrasing on the other side of the comparison. Option C starts with "the expansion of evening bus service," a noun phrase, but then compares it to "reducing downtown parking fees would be," which adds an unnecessary "would be" that throws off the balance and creates a wordy, uneven sentence. Your strategy: whenever you see a comparison, mentally label each side. Ask yourself, "Are both sides the same type of phrase?" If one side is an action and the other is a noun or clause, the parallel structure is broken — and that choice is wrong.

Question 5

An internal audit memorandum describes three actions completed before the auditor issued a finding. The actions were interviewing purchasing staff, reviewing invoices, and comparing payment dates with delivery records.

Which sentence presents the completed actions in parallel form while making their sequence clear?

  1. Before issuing the finding, the auditor interviewed purchasing staff, conducted a review of invoices, and payment dates were compared with delivery records.
  2. Before issuing the finding, the auditor interviewed purchasing staff, reviewed invoices, and compared payment dates with delivery records. (correct answer)
  3. Before issuing the finding, the auditor conducted interviews with purchasing staff, reviewed invoices, and a comparison of relevant dates was completed.
  4. Before issuing the finding, the auditor was interviewing purchasing staff, to review invoices, and compared payment dates with delivery records.
Explanation: When a sentence lists multiple actions performed by the same subject, those actions should appear in parallel form — meaning each item in the list follows the same grammatical structure. This question tests whether you can identify a list where every verb matches in tense and form, while also keeping the timeline clear through the introductory phrase "before issuing the finding." The key to parallelism in a list is consistency: pick one verb form and stick with it. In choice B, all three actions follow the same simple past tense pattern — interviewed, reviewed, compared — with the auditor as the clear subject performing each one. The opening phrase efficiently establishes the sequence without cluttering the sentence. This makes B the correct answer. Choice A breaks parallelism in the third item: instead of a matching verb, you get a passive construction ("payment dates were compared"), which shifts the subject away from the auditor. Choice C mixes structures inconsistently — it opens with a noun phrase ("conducted interviews"), shifts to a simple verb ("reviewed"), then closes with another passive construction ("a comparison...was completed"). These switches signal a lack of parallel structure even if the sentence reads smoothly at first glance. Choice D is perhaps the most obviously flawed, mixing three different verb forms: a past progressive ("was interviewing"), an infinitive phrase ("to review"), and a simple past ("compared") — three different grammatical patterns in a single list. A quick test you can apply: mentally line up each item in the list and ask, do they all follow the same pattern? If any item shifts structure, parallelism is broken.

Question 6

A regional hospital is revising a position description for its compliance coordinator. The draft states: "The role requires interpreting new regulations, to mediate disputes between departments, and the preparation of monthly compliance summaries."

Which replacement for the listed duties most effectively maintains parallel structure while preserving the intended meaning?

  1. the interpretation of new regulations, mediating departmental disputes, and monthly compliance summaries
  2. to interpret new regulations, mediating disputes between departments, and preparation of monthly summaries
  3. interpreting new regulations, mediating disputes between departments, and preparing monthly compliance summaries (correct answer)
  4. interpreting new regulations, to mediate disputes between departments, and prepares monthly compliance summaries
Explanation: Whenever you see a list of duties, actions, or items in a sentence, check that each item uses the same grammatical form — this is called parallel structure. Think of it like a matching set: if one item starts with a verb ending in -ing, they all should. The original sentence mixes three different forms: an infinitive (to interpret), a base verb phrase (to mediate), and a noun phrase (the preparation of). That inconsistency is the problem you're being asked to fix. Choice C — interpreting new regulations, mediating disputes between departments, and preparing monthly compliance summaries — solves this perfectly. All three items use the present participle (-ing) form, creating a clean, consistent list. The meaning stays intact, and the grammar is uniform throughout. That's your correct answer. Choice A fails because it mixes a noun phrase (the interpretation of), a participle (mediating), and then a bare noun (monthly compliance summaries) with no verb form at all — three different structures. Choice B opens with an infinitive (to interpret), then shifts to a participle (mediating), then drops back to a noun phrase (preparation of) — still three mismatched forms, so the parallel problem isn't resolved. Choice D starts with a participle (interpreting), jumps to an infinitive (to mediate), and then uses a conjugated verb (prepares) that doesn't fit a list at all — the most grammatically disjointed option of the four. Study tip: When checking parallel structure, mentally strip each list item down to its core form and line them up side by side. If they don't match, the sentence needs revision. Lists should look like siblings, not strangers.

Question 7

A public-works department is preparing an announcement for equipment-inspector positions. The announcement begins, "Applicants must provide evidence of the following qualifications:" It then lists experience, technical ability, and a required license.

Which list is most appropriately parallel after the introductory statement?

  1. three years of inspection experience, that they can operate diagnostic equipment, and a valid commercial license
  2. three years of inspection experience, proficiency with diagnostic equipment, and possession of a valid commercial license (correct answer)
  3. having worked as an inspector for three years, proficiency with diagnostic equipment, and that they possess a commercial license
  4. to have worked in inspection for three years, operating diagnostic equipment proficiently, and a valid commercial license
Explanation: When a sentence introduces a list, every item in that list must follow the same grammatical pattern — this is called parallel structure. Think of each item as a slot that must be filled with the same type of word or phrase. If one item is a noun phrase, they all must be noun phrases. Mixing noun phrases with clauses or infinitives creates an imbalance that makes writing harder to follow. Answer B works because all three items are clean noun phrases: three years of inspection experience, proficiency with diagnostic equipment, and possession of a valid commercial license. Each item names a qualification directly, and all three fit smoothly after "must provide evidence of the following qualifications." Answer A breaks the pattern by mixing a noun phrase with a that-clause: "that they can operate diagnostic equipment" is a subordinate clause, not a noun phrase, so it clashes with the other two items. Answer C starts with a gerund phrase ("having worked as an inspector"), shifts to a noun phrase, then drops in another that-clause ("that they possess a commercial license") — three different structures in one list. Answer D opens with an infinitive phrase ("to have worked in inspection"), switches to a present participial phrase ("operating diagnostic equipment proficiently"), then ends with a noun phrase — again, three mismatched forms. A quick test you can apply: read each list item by itself after the introduction. If any item sounds grammatically off or requires a different setup word, the list isn't parallel. On any exam question involving lists, always check that every item belongs to the same grammatical category.

Question 8

A human-resources policy gives supervisors two ways to handle remote-work requests: they may approve remote work for an entire team, or they may review each employee's request separately.

Which sentence uses "either . . . or" to present the two options in parallel form?

  1. Under the policy, supervisors may either approve remote work for an entire team or review individual requests case by case. (correct answer)
  2. Under the policy, supervisors may approve either remote work for an entire team or reviewing individual requests case by case.
  3. Under the policy, either supervisors may approve remote work for an entire team or individual requests are reviewed case by case.
  4. Under the policy, supervisors may either approve teamwide remote work or a case-by-case review of individual requests.
Explanation: When you see "either . . . or" in a sentence, your job is to check parallelism — the two elements joined by this correlative conjunction must have the same grammatical form. Think of it as a balance scale: whatever structure appears after "either" must mirror whatever structure appears after "or." The key to this question is identifying where "either" is placed, because that placement sets a promise about what must follow "or." In choice A, "either" appears directly before the verb "approve," so "or" must introduce another verb in the same form — and it does: "review." The structure is verb phrase + verb phrase ("approve remote work for an entire team" / "review individual requests case by case"), making it perfectly parallel. A is the correct answer. Choice B breaks the pattern by placing "either" before a noun phrase ("remote work for an entire team") but following "or" with a gerund phrase ("reviewing individual requests") — mismatched forms. Choice C shifts the subject midsentence: the first clause has "supervisors" as the actor, but the second clause switches to a passive construction ("individual requests are reviewed"), so the two sides aren't grammatically equivalent. Choice D places "either" before the verb "approve" but follows "or" with a noun phrase ("a case-by-case review"), pairing a verb with a noun — another mismatch. A useful strategy: after identifying where "either" sits in a sentence, label the grammatical category of what follows it, then check that "or" introduces something in the exact same category. If the categories don't match, the sentence fails the parallelism test.

Question 9

A workplace-safety orientation has three instructional goals. Employees will learn to identify incidents that require formal reporting, document those incidents accurately, and notify the appropriate supervisor.

Which sentence expresses all three goals with consistent parallel structure?

  1. The orientation teaches employees how to identify reportable incidents, how to document them accurately, and how to notify the appropriate supervisor. (correct answer)
  2. The orientation teaches employees how to identify reportable incidents, documenting them accurately, and which supervisor should be notified.
  3. The orientation teaches employees the identification of reportable incidents, how to document them accurately, and notifying the appropriate supervisor.
  4. The orientation teaches employees to identify reportable incidents, how incidents are documented accurately, and notification of the appropriate supervisor.
Explanation: When a sentence lists multiple items or actions, those items must follow the same grammatical pattern — this is called parallel structure. On questions like this, your job is to identify which answer keeps every item in the list in the same grammatical form. Answer A uses "how to identify," "how to document," and "how to notify" — three identical infinitive phrase structures introduced by "how to." Every element matches, making the list clean, logical, and grammatically balanced. A is the correct answer. The other choices each break that consistency in a specific way. Answer B starts with "how to identify" but then shifts to "documenting them accurately" (a gerund phrase) and "which supervisor should be notified" (a noun clause). Three different forms, three different problems. Answer C mixes "the identification of" (a noun phrase), "how to document" (an infinitive phrase), and "notifying" (a gerund), giving you three mismatched grammatical structures in a single sentence. Answer D opens with "to identify" (a bare infinitive), then switches to "how incidents are documented accurately" (a passive noun clause), and finally lands on "notification of" (a noun phrase) — again, three completely different forms. A helpful test strategy: when checking for parallel structure, isolate each item in the list and label its grammatical form. If the labels don't all match, the sentence fails the test. On the advanced literacy exam, parallel structure questions often disguise the error by making each individual item sound reasonable on its own — the flaw only appears when you line them up and compare them directly.

Question 10

A municipal report compares recreation centers operated by the city with similar facilities operated by private companies. The report's draft says, "Unlike private contractors, the city-operated centers remain open during holidays and offer reduced fees to residents."

Which revision creates a logically and grammatically parallel comparison without changing the report's meaning?

  1. Unlike private managers, city-operated centers remain open during holidays and offer reduced fees to local residents.
  2. Unlike privately operated facilities, the city requires its centers to remain open and to offer residents reduced fees.
  3. Unlike privately managed facilities, city-operated centers remain open during holidays and offer reduced fees to residents. (correct answer)
  4. In contrast with private managers, extended holiday hours and reduced resident fees are offered by city centers.
Explanation: When a sentence makes a comparison using "unlike" or "in contrast with," the items being compared must be grammatically parallel — meaning the same type of thing must be compared to the same type of thing. This is called a faulty comparison error, and it's one of the most commonly tested grammar concepts on advanced literacy exams. The original sentence compares "private contractors" (people) to "city-operated centers" (facilities). That's comparing a group of people to a group of buildings — a logical mismatch. The fix is to make sure both sides of the comparison refer to the same category of thing. Choice C does exactly this: "Unlike privately managed facilities, city-operated centers..." — both sides are now facilities, making the comparison logical and parallel. The rest of the sentence preserves the original meaning about holiday hours and reduced fees. C is your answer. Choice A swaps "private contractors" for "private managers," but it still compares managers (people) to city-operated centers (facilities) — the same faulty structure as the original. Choice B reverses the problem differently: it compares "privately operated facilities" to "the city" — now a facility is being compared to a government body, which is also a category mismatch. Choice D uses passive voice and restructures the sentence so awkwardly that "extended holiday hours and reduced resident fees" become the subject — shifting meaning and creating a dangling comparison with "private managers." As a strategy, whenever you see "unlike" or "in contrast with" in a sentence, immediately check both sides of the comparison and ask: Are these the same type of thing? If not, that sentence has a faulty comparison.