A new study suggests that the conversational pace of

Sentence is not correct. Correct idiom is: distinguish A from B

Given that, I will prefer (B).
1. Parrallel structure (infinitive from)
2. correct use(in paranthesis): "as a result"

Between C & D, I will go with D - all the other choices does not make sense.

B should be it.

A - ability + infinitive is correct construction
B - IMO the best
C - they doesn't have a clear antecedent
D - correct use of so..that. Distinguish is used in an infinitive here, therefore we do not need the standard construction distinguish X from Y - to distinguish X and Y is also correct. It fails to be the best because the sentence, with this choice will mean, everyday pace is so brisk that it results in not making sense of speech
E - so .. as to is not correct construction and also being gives this choice a bad vibe

D for me

B-- what is "and" before " as a result" parallal to. IMO it is parallal to "hampers"
B would have been better with the construction, like ------------------------- " ---and, as a result, makes no sense of speech".

What is the OA? The Original Post was posted almost a week ago.

Also for those of you who chose "B" would you care to explain why the structure on either sides of "and" , the coordinating conjuction, ARENT EQUAL?

IC=A new study suggests that the conversational pace of everyday life may be so brisk it hampers the ability of some children for distinguishing discrete sounds and words

AND = coordinating conjuction.

what follows [as a result, to make sense of speech] is NOT EVEN a clause its a phrase. Besides "as a result" is parenthetical element. Read sentence without "as a result" and ask yourself does the sentence make sense??

<IC> <AND> <Phrase>

How can this be correct?

Paul/HongHu/DJ/ and all the other SC experts out there could you please chime in to answer the aforementioned question?

Question #2:

I thought the relative pronoun "that" introduces a relative clause and therefore must be preceded by a noun [No??]. Any other rules on using "that".

All AC here have a "that" preceded by a verb. When is it okay to have "that" be preceded by a verb? Any rules on this?

Your help is greatly appreciated.

let me post the OA

OA is B.

I understand your point. I would have picked D as well although B is parallel, it really makes no sense to end a sentence like that.

"that" does NOT have to be preceded by a noun, especially in the idiom of intensity "so...that"

Vithal perfectly explained why D is wrong
Break down D:
A new study suggests that the conversational pace of everyday life
1- may be so brisk [that it hampers the ability of some children to distinguish discrete sounds and words],
conjunction: and
2- results in not making sense of speech

We can agree that subject, conversational pace "may be so brisk that...", but we cannot say that it is the "conversational pace" which results in X. Instead, it is the fact that it is "so brisk" which "results in..." as B says.

Hope it is clear

Hi, Paul, I thought the structure is

A new study suggests that the conversational pace of everyday life may be so brisk that it
1) hampers the ability of some children to distinguish discrete sounds and words,
conjunction: and
2) results in not making sense of speech

then, I cannot see any wrong here. Because it is still "so brisk" which "results in...." as you said.

I think the "level at which" parallelism occurs isnt correctly explained in this thread. Here is what i mean:

The OA is correct because of the following reason:

A new study suggests that the conversational pace of everyday life may be so brisk that it hampers the ability of some children

(1) to distinguish discrete sounds and words

<AND>, [as a result], -----> parenthetical element

(2) to make sense of speech

Perfect parallelism. Apply (1) and (2) to the main stem and you will see that it makes sense.

Try this with D:

A new study suggests that the conversational pace of everyday life may be so brisk that it hampers the ability of some children

(1) to distinguish discrete sounds and words

<AND>

(2) results in not making sense of speech.

The original breakdown by Paul, Vithal would lead us to the following for #2:

A new study suggests that the converstional pace of everyday life results in not making sense of speech

I think [from a meaning perspective] this is okay. But no matter how you breakdown the root statement from the "parallel elements", D doesnt provide you good parallelism, which is why it is wrong.

Paul, Vithal or anyone else please chime in if the above explanation is wrong.

Another general question:

For parallelism does the parallel elements have to be identical from a syntax perspective. For e.g. if you had "phrases" as parallel elements i dont it would suffice to have just "phrases" even the "types of phrases" have to be the same too, correct?

You simply cannot have one parallel element be an infinitive phrase and another element be another [not infinitive phrase] type of phrase?

I guess the above example proves that for parallelism to be 100% correct 2 things need to happen:

1) each individual element needs to make sense with the stem
and
2) each individual element must also be of the same grammatical type. For e.g. The list should have all infinitve phrases or all gerund phrases or all relative clauses, etc, etc.

Paul [and other SC Gods] could you please confirm this?

one exception I found after reading through my notes is:
Two gerunds + noun is fine for parallelism
Ex: He liked sailing, swimming and girls. --> correct

Good One!! Any other examples anyone? please post. I'd be curious to see if principle/rule that parallel elements have to be identical [syntactically] is the norm or the exception.

Paul could you please confirm this concept. Whether the "type of phrases" or parallel elements have to be identical. Vithal provided an "exception" to this rule. Any other exceptions......

What was I thinking :!:
Thank you chunjuwu for correcting me in the parallel elements being compared. That said, I am still certain that D is wrong because of logical flow. First, you have "conversational pace" "hampers...", but how can it "results in not making..."? Instead, the sentence is much better structured by having a description of how X hampers Y and then stating that the result of that is Z. B conveys the right parallelism as gmataquaguy said. I also agree that a conjunction should link similar elements(phrase vs phrase/clause vs clause) and B does link infinitive phrases together. Vithal is also right on that "exception" although gerunds are considered noun and his examples are fine.