Examples of Parallelism

Parallelism refers to using elements in sentences that are grammatically similar or identical in structure, sound, meaning, or meter. This technique adds symmetry, effectiveness and balance to the written piece. To get across ideas of equal value or to create snazzy sentences, use parallel sentence structure. Good sentences attempt to form parallel patterns. Without this parallel structure, they can sound stilted and awkward. For instance, which sentence sounds better below.

(1) King Alfred tried to make the law clear, precise, and equitable.
(2) King Alfred tried to make clear laws that had precision and were equitable.
Most people would argue that the first sentence somehow "sounds better" than the second. The first sentence uses parallel structure in its adjectives. The second doesn't. If we label the parts of speech, the first sentence has this grammatical structure after the word law: [Adjective--Adjective--Adjective]. The second sentence has this grammatical structure after the word laws: [Relative Pronoun--Verb-- Direct Object--Conjunction--Verb--Adjective]. The first sentence has a clear pattern of adjective, adjective, adjective. The second sentence has no pattern at all!
To hear the difference between a parallel and non-parallel sentence, read aloud the sentences below. The red sentences are examples of "bad" or faulty parallelism. The blue sentences use parallel structure.
faulty parallelism: She revels in chocolate, walking under the moonlight, and songs from the 1930s jazz period.
good parallelism: She revels in sweet chocolate eclairs, long moonlit walks, and classic jazz music.
more good parallelism: She loves eating chocolate eclairs, taking moonlit walks, and singing classic jazz.
Do you hear the difference? What causes that distinction between "good" and "bad" sentences? Again, the difference appears in the pattern of grammar. If we dissect the sentence, the faulty sentence on top has a grammatical pattern that looks like this:
"She revels in . . . "
"chocolate," [Object of Preposition,]
"walking under the moonlight," [Gerund--Preposition--Definite Article--Object of Preposition]
It's all a jumbled mess of different parts of speech being used in different ways. On the other hand, the second sentence has a clear parallel pattern:
"She revels in"
"sweet chocolate eclairs," [Adjective--Adjective--Object]
"long moonlit walks," [Adjective--Adjective--Object]
"and classic jazz music." [Adjective--Adjective--Object]
The same pattern (adjective, adjective object) reoccurs in the same way. It is parallel in its structure, and thus musical and rhythmical to read and to hear spoken aloud. The second example is also parallel, just in a different pattern.
"She revels in"
"eating chocolate eclairs" [Gerund--Adjective--Object of Gerund]
"taking moonlit walks" [Gerund--Adjective--Object of Gerund]
"and singing classic jazz." [Gerund--Adjective--Object of Gerund]

 

14. Argumentation Paragraph

School choice turns out to not only be a bad idea; it’s also a violation of our constitution.

Refutation: ...[Introduce Opposing Arguments]

Considering the many challenges facing public schools, it’s understandable that many people would be eager to pursue new options. Supporters of school choice point out that under the current public school system, parents with economic means already exercise school choice by moving from areas with failing or dangerous schools to neighborhoods with better, safer schools. Their argument is that school choice would allow all parents the freedom, regardless of income level, to select the school that provides the best education (Chub and Moe). Schools would then have to compete for students by offering higher academic results and greater safety. Schools unable to measure up to the standards of successful schools would fail and possibly close. [Acknowledge Valid Parts] Activists within the school choice movement can be applauded for seeking to improve public education, but the changes they propose would in fact seriously damage public education as a whole. One of the biggest dangers of school choice is the power behind large corporations specializing in opening and operating charter schools. Two notable companies are Green Dot, which is the leading public school operator in Los Angeles (Green Dot), and KIPP, which operates 65 schools in 19 different states [KIPP]. These companies represent a growing trend of privatization of public schools by large corporations. It is feared that these corporations could grow to a point that public control of education would be lost. Education policy would be left in the hands of entrepreneurial think tanks, corporate boards of directors, and lobbyists who are more interested in profit than educating students [Miller and Gerson]. [Begin Concluding] Education should be left in the hands of professional educators and not business people with MBAs. To do otherwise is not only dangerous, it defies common sense.

What I liked about this refutation: The writer calmly and clearly outlines the true concerns and reasons why people oppose the opinion. He makes sure the reader knows that he is outlining opposing viewpoints because he gives hints like "Supporters of school choice point out that..." or "Their argument is that...". This is a nice way for readers to be aware of what others think.

Also, towards the end of the first paragraph, and throughout the second paragraph, the writer spends time clearly attacking these opposing views. He helps the reader feel like the opposing views might SEEM good on the surface, but they are indeed not good enough. He helps the reader see this with hints like "One of the biggest dangers of school choice is..." or "It is feared that...". This paragraph particularly draws in any hostile readers; the writer cunningly draws them in by complimenting their views when he says "Activists within the school choice movement can be applauded for seeking to improve public education," but he immediately points out the flaws, saying that " the changes they propose would in fact seriously damage public education as a whole." Complimenting the opposing argument really invites all your hesitant readers; they’re not threatened, and they’re now more willing to listen to the arguments.

Finally, at the end of the refutation, there is a clear conclusion.

13. A Compound Complex Sentence

A compound-complex sentence is made from two independent clauses and one or more dependent clauses.

 Examples:

1. Although I like to go camping, I haven't had the time to go lately, and I haven't found anyone to go with.

• independent clause: "I haven't had the time to go lately"
• independent clause: "I haven't found anyone to go with"
• Dependent clause: "Although I like to go camping... "

 2. We decided that the movie was too violent, but our children, who like to watch scary movies, thought that we were wrong.

• independent clause: "We decided that the movie was too violent"
• independent clause: "(but) our children thought that we were wrong"
• dependent clause: who like to watch scary movies

Interpreting ideas

(Compound Sentence)

A compound sentence contains two independent clauses joined by a coordinator. The coordinators are as follows: for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so. Except for very short sentences, coordinators are always preceded by a comma. In the following compound sentences, subjects are in yellow, verbs are in green, and the coordinators and the commas that precede them are in red.

I tried to speak Spanish, and my friend tried to speak English. Alejandro played football, so Maria went shopping. Alejandro played football, for Maria went shopping.

The above three sentences are compound sentences. Each sentence contains two independent clauses, and they are joined by a coordinator with a comma preceding it.

Note : how the conscious use of coordinators can change the meaning of the sentences. Sentences 2 and 3,

for example : are identical except for the coordinators.

 In sentence 2, obviously, "Alejandro played football" first, and as a consequence, "Maria went shopping."

In sentence 3, "Maria went shopping" first. In sentence 3, "Alejandro played football" because, possibly, he didn't have anything else to do, for or because "Maria went shopping." Use of other coordinators change the relationship between the two clauses because the  implications would the use of "yet" or "but" have on the meaning of the sentence?