I came across this question in the brutal SCs.
１０． According to Henry David Thoreau, the reason a majority is allowed to rule is not that it is more likely to be right, but because it is stronger.
(A) the reason a majority is allowed to rule is not that it is more likely to be right, but because it is stronger
(B) a majority is allowed to rule not because it is more likely to be right, but because it is stronger
(C) the reason for majority rule is not because they are more likely to be right, they are stronger
(D) the majority is allowed to rule because of its strength, not because it is more likely to be right
(E) the reason why the majority rules is that it is strong, not because it is likely to be right
the solution says that B is the correct answer. However, ts uses "stronger" -a word used to indicate comparison. There is no entity being compared that follows stronger. Like "stronger than the rest"
This is not necessarily a problem. Yes, ordinarily in a comparison, we have to specify both terms --- it makes absolutely no sense to say "John is smarter
" if we don't know --- smarter than whom
? In that example, the omission of the second term of the comparison is egregious, totally unacceptable ---- it leaves a gap the reader has no way to fill in on her own.
By contrast, when we speak of the "majority
" of a group, that automatically implies --- there must be a "minority", all the other people who are in the group but not in the majority. This second term does not need to be named explicitly in the sentence because they are automatically implied. The GMAT will occasionally do this on a more challenging SC question --- it will name one group (e.g. "those who excel in writing") and construct a comparison without a second term, because the nature of the group automatically implies others who are not in the group.
Does this make sense?
Magoosh Test Prep