gauravkaushik8591 wrote:
But if we say 'Stacy eats apples quicker than Alex' ? Isn't that okay? And if it is, then why can't the one above be?
Dear
gauravkaushik8591,
I'm happy to respond.
First of all, let's keep the BIG picture in mind. This question is atrocious. It is of abysmal quality. Investing time in making sense of it is not necessarily going to help you prepare for the GMAT. Here's a much higher quality question, worth your energy & attention & reflection.
https://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/3263Next, I will say --- how to put this delicately? --- the example sentence you gave might not be the most appropriate, because at least to American ears, it has what one might call off-color innuendos. Let's just choose a different sentence to discuss.
Fred writes letters faster than Howard.
Now, from the point of view of logic, we absolutely know what the sentence is trying to say --- we absolutely know that Fred can write letters, Howard can write letters, and Fred most certainly cannot write Howard, whatever that would mean. We know that, based on logic. BUT, whenever we have the grammatical structure:
[subject][verb][object][comparative]"than"[noun #3]this structure contains grammatical ambiguity: is the third noun, after the word "
than," being compared to the subject or to the object? Nothing in the grammar itself resolves that ambiguity.
The GMAT SC sets a very very high standard. It is
not enough if a sentence leaves open grammatical ambiguity and then we have to use logic to resolve the ambiguity. By GMAT standards, that is
not a well-written sentence. For the GMAT, a well-written sentence is one in which grammar and logic and rhetoric are all united in the message they are delivering. For the GMAT, a well-written sentence has structural integrity: every aspect of the sentence supports every other aspect of the sentence, and together, they present a united meaning that is powerful and clear. If the grammar leaves open ambiguity, and we need to resort to logic to shore up the opening left by the grammar, that is not a sentence with structural integrity.
Does all this make sense?
Mike