English Grammar & Syntax Quiz: Parallel Structure In Lists And Pairs
10 questions · exam conditions
0:00
Parallel Structure In Lists And PairsQuestion 1 of 10

Which revision of the bracketed portion best completes the sentence with a parallel series?

Under the agreement, the city promises [to reduce storm-water runoff, restoring the damaged wetlands, and that residents will receive access to the river].

reducing storm-water runoff, to restore the damaged wetlands, and providing residents with access to the river
to reduce storm-water runoff, to restore the damaged wetlands, and to provide residents with access to the river
to reduce storm-water runoff, restoration of the damaged wetlands, and providing residents access to the river
that storm-water runoff will be reduced, to restore the damaged wetlands, and residents receiving access to the river
← Back to quizzes

English Grammar & Syntax Quiz

English Grammar & Syntax Quiz: Parallel Structure In Lists And Pairs

Practice Parallel Structure In Lists And Pairs in English Grammar & Syntax 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 In Lists And Pairs, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for English Grammar & Syntax.

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

Which revision of the bracketed portion best completes the sentence with a parallel series?

Under the agreement, the city promises [to reduce storm-water runoff, restoring the damaged wetlands, and that residents will receive access to the river].

  1. reducing storm-water runoff, to restore the damaged wetlands, and providing residents with access to the river
  2. to reduce storm-water runoff, to restore the damaged wetlands, and to provide residents with access to the river (correct answer)
  3. to reduce storm-water runoff, restoration of the damaged wetlands, and providing residents access to the river
  4. that storm-water runoff will be reduced, to restore the damaged wetlands, and residents receiving access to the river
Explanation: When a sentence lists multiple actions or ideas joined by "and," every item in that list must use the same grammatical form — this is called parallel structure. Think of it like a recipe: if you start with verbs, every ingredient must be a verb in the same form. In this sentence, the city "promises" something, and that something is a list of three commitments. The first item in the original sentence uses the infinitive "to reduce," so the clearest, most consistent approach is to carry that same infinitive form ("to + verb") through every item in the series. Choice B does exactly this: to reduce, to restore, and to provide — three clean infinitives in a row. The structure locks perfectly into "the city promises [to do X, to do Y, and to do Z]." That's your correct answer. Choice A mixes three different forms: "reducing" (gerund), "to restore" (infinitive), and "providing" (gerund) — none of them match each other consistently. Choice C starts with an infinitive but then switches to "restoration of" (a noun phrase) and "providing" (a gerund), creating a grammatically inconsistent trio. Choice D is perhaps the most scattered, blending a "that"-clause, an infinitive, and a participial phrase — three entirely different constructions forced awkwardly together. A quick strategy: whenever you spot a list in a grammar question, immediately check whether all items share the same form. Identify the form of the first item, then verify that every item matches it. If anything shifts — from infinitive to gerund, from phrase to clause — that's your red flag.

Question 2

Which revision of the bracketed portion correctly uses neither . . . nor to identify two possible causes?

Investigators concluded that the discrepancy resulted [neither from a faulty gauge nor because the data had been transcribed incorrectly].

  1. neither from a faulty gauge nor the data had been transcribed incorrectly
  2. from a faulty gauge neither nor from an incorrect transcription of the data
  3. from neither a faulty gauge nor an incorrect transcription of the data (correct answer)
  4. neither because of a faulty gauge nor an incorrect transcription of the data
Explanation: When you see neither . . . nor in a sentence, your first instinct should be to check parallel structure — the grammatical form following neither must match the grammatical form following nor. Think of the two parts as a balanced scale: whatever sits on one side must mirror the other. In the original sentence, the intended meaning is that two things — a faulty gauge and incorrect transcription — are both ruled out as causes. The cleanest way to express this is to let neither . . . nor introduce two noun phrases that both function as objects of the preposition from. Choice C does exactly this: "resulted from neither a faulty gauge nor an incorrect transcription of the data." Both a faulty gauge and an incorrect transcription of the data are parallel noun phrases, and the single preposition from governs both elegantly. Choice A pairs a prepositional phrase ("from a faulty gauge") with a clause ("the data had been transcribed incorrectly") — two mismatched forms. Choice B scrambles the placement of neither, burying it awkwardly between from and nor rather than positioning it to introduce the first element of the pair. Choice D opens with neither because of a faulty gauge but then shifts to nor an incorrect transcription, mixing a prepositional phrase led by because of with a bare noun phrase — another parallelism failure. The key strategy: whenever you see correlative conjunctions (neither/nor, either/or, both/and, not only/but also), immediately identify what grammatical structure follows the first conjunction, then confirm the second conjunction introduces the exact same structure.

Question 3

Which revision of the bracketed portion creates a parallel list of features requested by the committee?

The committee requested a database [that flags duplicate records, allowing staff to correct errors securely, and that generates monthly reports].

  1. that flags duplicate records, that allows staff to correct errors securely, and that generates monthly reports (correct answer)
  2. capable of flagging duplicate records, that allows staff to correct errors securely, and generating monthly reports
  3. that flags duplicate records, correction of errors securely by staff, and it generates monthly reports
  4. for flagging duplicate records, to allow staff to correct errors securely, and that generates monthly reports
Explanation: When you see a question asking for a parallel list, your job is to check that every item in the list uses the same grammatical form. Think of parallelism as a matching game — if you start with one structure, every element must follow that same pattern. In the original sentence, the committee requested a database with three features. The list mixes "that flags," "allowing," and "that generates" — three different forms, which breaks parallelism. The fix is to make all three items match. Answer A does exactly this: that flags duplicate records, that allows staff to correct errors securely, and that generates monthly reports. Each item is a relative clause beginning with "that" followed by a present-tense verb. The structure is perfectly consistent. Answer B fails because it uses three different forms: "capable of flagging" (adjective phrase), "that allows" (relative clause), and "generating" (participial phrase) — three different grammatical categories mixed together. Answer C breaks parallelism in the second and third items. "Correction of errors securely by staff" is a noun phrase, and "it generates monthly reports" is an independent clause — neither matches the relative clause structure of "that flags." Answer D also mixes forms: "for flagging" (prepositional phrase), "to allow" (infinitive phrase), and "that generates" (relative clause) — again, three incompatible structures. Study tip: When checking parallelism, isolate each list item and ask yourself, "What part of speech or clause type is this?" If the answers don't all match, the list isn't parallel. Watch especially for lists that start strong but quietly shift form by the third item.

Question 4

Which revision of the bracketed portion best maintains parallel structure?

The fellowship requires applicants [to submit a research proposal, providing two references, and to identify a faculty sponsor].

  1. submitting a research proposal, to provide two references, and identifying a faculty sponsor
  2. to submit a research proposal, providing two references, and to identify a faculty sponsor
  3. to submit a research proposal, to provide two references, and to identify a faculty sponsor (correct answer)
  4. submission of a research proposal, providing two references, and identification of a faculty sponsor
Explanation: Parallel structure requires that items in a list share the same grammatical form. When a sentence uses a series of verbs or phrases joined by "and," each element must match. Here, the sentence opens with "requires applicants to submit" — an infinitive construction — so every item in the list must follow that same infinitive pattern: to + base verb. Choice C does exactly this: "to submit a research proposal, to provide two references, and to identify a faculty sponsor." All three items are infinitives, creating a clean, balanced series that flows consistently from the opening verb phrase. Choice A mixes three different forms — "submitting" (gerund/participle), "to provide" (infinitive), and "identifying" (gerund/participle) — making it structurally inconsistent throughout. Choice B is the original bracketed text and represents the most common parallel structure trap: it starts and ends correctly with infinitives ("to submit" and "to identify") but buries a gerund ("providing") in the middle, breaking the pattern where it's easy to overlook. Choice D shifts to noun phrases ("submission of," "identification of") while sandwiching a participial phrase ("providing") in the middle — three different structures with no consistent anchor. A reliable strategy: when you spot a list, identify the grammatical form of the first item, then check whether every subsequent item matches it exactly. Parallel structure errors are often disguised by correct-sounding middle items, so always audit the full series. On grammar exams, C is correct here because it's the only choice where all three elements are true infinitives.

Question 5

Which revision places not only and but also so that they introduce grammatically parallel elements?

  1. The editor not only questioned whether the evidence was current but also the representativeness of the sample.
  2. The editor questioned whether not only the evidence was current but also whether the sample had been representative.
  3. The editor questioned not only whether the evidence was current but also whether the sample had been representative. (correct answer)
  4. The editor questioned not only the currency of the evidence but also whether the sample had been representative.
Explanation: When you see not only...but also in a sentence, your job is to check what grammatical structure follows each correlative conjunction. Whatever comes after not only must be the same type of grammatical unit as what comes after but also — this is the rule of parallel structure with correlative conjunctions. The key to cracking this question is identifying where not only and but also are placed and what they introduce. In answer C, both conjunctions introduce noun clauses beginning with whether: "not only whether the evidence was current" and "but also whether the sample had been representative." Two whether-clauses, perfectly parallel. This makes C the correct answer. Answer A fails because not only introduces a whether-clause ("whether the evidence was current") while but also introduces a noun phrase ("the representativeness of the sample") — a clause paired with a phrase is not parallel. Answer B repositions not only so it falls inside the first whether-clause, modifying "the evidence was current" rather than introducing a full parallel element. This creates an awkward construction where the two whether-clauses don't actually align as the correlative pair. Answer D pairs a noun phrase ("the currency of the evidence") with a whether-clause ("whether the sample had been representative") — same mismatch as A, just reversed. A reliable strategy: after spotting not only...but also, bracket what follows each conjunction and ask yourself, "Are these the same grammatical type?" If one is a clause and the other is a phrase, the parallelism is broken and that answer is wrong.

Question 6

The writer intends to compare two abilities possessed by the consultant, not the consultant with her presentation. Which revision best expresses that comparison while maintaining parallel structure?

  1. The committee valued identifying hidden costs more than the consultant gave a polished presentation of the findings.
  2. The committee valued the consultant's ability to identify hidden costs more than presenting the findings in a polished manner.
  3. The committee valued more the consultant's ability to identify hidden costs than her polished presentation of the findings.
  4. The committee valued the consultant's ability to identify hidden costs more than her ability to present the findings clearly. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a sentence compares two things, both elements must be grammatically parallel — meaning they should share the same structure — and the comparison must be logically clear about what is being compared to what. This question adds a second layer: the comparison must be between two abilities the consultant possesses, not between the consultant herself and her presentation. Choice D accomplishes both goals cleanly. "The consultant's ability to identify hidden costs" is compared directly to "her ability to present the findings clearly" — two parallel noun phrases, both describing abilities, both belonging to the same person. The structure is symmetrical and the meaning is unambiguous. Choice A fails on both counts. "Identifying hidden costs" is compared to "the consultant gave a polished presentation," which is a full clause — a structural mismatch — and it compares an action to a person's behavior rather than two abilities. Choice B compares "the consultant's ability to identify hidden costs" with "presenting the findings in a polished manner." These aren't parallel (one is a noun phrase with "ability," the other is a gerund phrase without it), and the subject of the second element is unclear — whose presenting? Choice C rearranges the sentence by placing "more" awkwardly before the object, which sounds stilted and unnatural in standard English. More critically, it compares an ability with "her polished presentation of the findings," which is a noun describing an event or product — not explicitly an ability — so the comparison remains imprecise. Your takeaway: when checking comparisons, isolate the two things being compared and ask yourself, "Are these the same grammatical type, and are they logically equivalent?" If either answer is no, the sentence needs revision.

Question 7

Which version of the sentence most effectively uses the paired construction either . . . or?

  1. The new protocol will either allow technicians to calibrate the sensor remotely or require a supervisor to inspect it on site. (correct answer)
  2. The new protocol either will allow technicians to calibrate the sensor remotely or a supervisor must inspect it on site.
  3. The new protocol will allow either technicians to calibrate the sensor remotely or requiring a supervisor to inspect it on site.
  4. The new protocol will either permit technicians to calibrate the sensor remotely or a supervisor's inspection will be required on site.
Explanation: When you see a question testing either . . . or, your first instinct should be to check parallelism — the grammatical structures following either and or must match each other exactly. This is called a correlative conjunction, and the rule is simple: whatever grammatical form follows either must be mirrored by the same form after or. Choice A handles this perfectly. Either precedes "allow technicians to calibrate the sensor remotely," and or precedes "require a supervisor to inspect it on site." Both elements are infinitive verb phrases ("allow . . ." / "require . . ."), making them structurally identical. The paired construction is balanced and clean — A is correct. Choice B breaks parallelism by placing either before "will allow," setting up a verb phrase, but then following or with an entirely new clause ("a supervisor must inspect it on site"). The two halves belong to different grammatical categories, so they don't match. Choice C misplaces either so that it pairs "technicians to calibrate" with "requiring a supervisor" — mixing an infinitive construction with a gerund phrase, which destroys the parallel structure. Choice D commits the same error as B: after either, you get "permit technicians to calibrate" (a verb phrase), but after or, you get "a supervisor's inspection will be required" (a full independent clause). Mixing a verb phrase with an independent clause violates parallelism. A useful test: after placing either and or, mentally strip everything else away and ask, "Do the two things I'm comparing look grammatically alike?" If yes, you've found your answer.

Question 8

Which revision most clearly coordinates the two kinds of experience Maya gained?

  1. The internship gave Maya both experience drafting contracts and observation of how negotiations are conducted.
  2. The internship gave Maya experience in both drafting contracts and she observed how negotiations are conducted.
  3. The internship gave Maya both experience in drafting contracts and observing how negotiations are conducted.
  4. The internship gave Maya experience both in drafting contracts and in observing how negotiations are conducted. (correct answer)
Explanation: When a sentence presents two parallel ideas, every element on both sides of the conjunction must match grammatically — this is the principle of parallel structure. In sentences using "both...and," whatever grammatical form follows "both" must be mirrored exactly after "and." Choice D is the strongest revision because it achieves perfect parallelism: "both in drafting contracts and in observing how negotiations are conducted." The preposition "in" introduces each experience, and both are expressed as gerund phrases (drafting / observing). The structure is balanced, and the reader clearly sees two equivalent experiences being coordinated. Choice A breaks parallelism by pairing a noun phrase (experience drafting contracts) with a noun phrase about observation (observation of how negotiations are conducted) — but the forms aren't constructed identically, and "observation of" is wordier and less graceful than the gerund construction. More importantly, "both" is misplaced before "experience," so it doesn't properly signal two parallel items. Choice B places "both" after "experience in," then abandons the parallel structure entirely by switching to a full clause ("she observed how negotiations are conducted"). A clause cannot be parallel to a prepositional phrase. Choice C comes close but falls short: "both experience in drafting contracts and observing how negotiations are conducted." Here "experience in drafting" is a noun phrase, while "observing" is a bare gerund — the structures don't truly mirror each other. A useful tip: whenever you see "both...and," "either...or," or "not only...but also," mentally diagram what grammatical unit follows each half. If they don't match, the sentence has faulty parallelism.

Question 9

The sentence contrasts two possible responses to a budget shortfall. Which revision best preserves that meaning and maintains parallel structure?

  1. The director responded to the shortfall by revising the schedule rather than the training budget was cut.
  2. The director responded to the shortfall by revising the schedule rather than by cutting the training budget. (correct answer)
  3. The director responded to the shortfall through a revision of the schedule rather than cutting the training budget.
  4. The director responded to the shortfall to revise the schedule rather than by cutting the training budget.
Explanation: When a sentence sets up a contrast using "rather than," both sides of the comparison must be grammatically parallel — meaning they should share the same grammatical form. This question tests whether you can recognize and apply that rule of parallel structure. In option B, the structure is clean and symmetrical: "by revising the schedule" is balanced against "by cutting the training budget." Both phrases use "by + gerund (-ing verb)," creating a true parallel. The contrast is clear, and the grammar is consistent throughout. This is your correct answer. Now look at why the others fall short. Option A breaks parallelism by shifting from a gerund phrase ("by revising the schedule") to a full clause ("the training budget was cut"). The two sides of the contrast are in completely different grammatical forms, making the sentence awkward and structurally inconsistent. Option C almost works, but it switches forms mid-sentence — "through a revision" (a noun phrase) contrasts with "cutting the training budget" (a gerund phrase). These don't match, so the parallel structure fails. Option D uses "to revise" (an infinitive) on the first side and "by cutting" (a prepositional gerund phrase) on the second — again, two different forms that create an imbalance and distort the intended meaning. A useful strategy: whenever you see "rather than," "either/or," "both/and," or similar contrast or correlative structures in an answer choice, immediately check that the elements on both sides share the same grammatical form. If one side uses "by + gerund," the other must too. Matching forms is the key to correct parallel structure.

Question 10

Which revision best completes the correlative comparison begun by the more?

  1. The more carefully the analysts defined the categories, classification errors became less likely to be made.
  2. By defining the categories more carefully, the less likely the analysts were to make classification errors.
  3. The more careful the analysts' definition of the categories, they made fewer errors in classification.
  4. The more carefully the analysts defined the categories, the less likely they were to make classification errors. (correct answer)
Explanation: When you see a question involving the more..., your brain should immediately complete that pattern: the more..., the more/less.... This is a correlative comparison — a paired construction where both halves must mirror each other grammatically to show a proportional relationship. The structure demands parallel phrasing in both clauses. Choice D executes this perfectly: "The more carefully the analysts defined the categories, the less likely they were to make classification errors." Both halves open with the + comparative, both contain full subject-verb phrases, and the logical relationship (greater care → fewer errors) comes through cleanly. This is your model sentence. Choice A breaks the pattern entirely. The second half drops the required the less structure and instead uses "classification errors became less likely to be made" — a passive, structurally mismatched clause that abandons the correlative framework. Choice B is tempting because it uses the less, but the first half opens with "By defining the categories more carefully" — a participial phrase, not a the more clause. The correlative pair is incomplete because the opening structure never establishes the required the more anchor. Choice C starts correctly with "The more careful the analysts' definition," but the second half again breaks down: "they made fewer errors" lacks the the fewer/the less opener, so the parallel structure collapses. As a study tip, memorize this rule: correlative comparisons require the + comparative in BOTH clauses. If either half drops that opener, the sentence is structurally broken — regardless of whether the meaning seems logical.