In 1852 Robert Angus Smith published a detailed report of the chemistr

Dear anujkhatiwada,
The way the idiom is constructed, in each branch, the comparative word must immediately follow the word "the" ---- "the closer", "the more", etc. The word "city" is not a comparative word.

The more I think about this, the more I think this is not a question up to GMAT standards. Above I chose (A), but now I think that "more ... increasingly acidic" is redundant, and thus, no answer choice correctly phrases this. I think the correct phrasing would be
that the closer one came to town, the more acidic the city air became
Notice the two comparative structures that immediately follow the word "the" in each branch. That's the ideal, and no choice really comes acceptably close to that.

Mike

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of the crucial part of this sentence is that the city air became increasingly acidic with proximity to the town.

Concepts tested here: Modifiers + Tenses + Awkwardness/Redundancy

• The simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.
• The "would + simple present tense verb" construction is used to refer to hypothetical future actions and habitual actions in the past.
• In a “phrase + comma + noun” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun; this is one of the most frequently tested concepts on GMAT sentence correction.

A: This answer choice incorrectly uses the "would + simple present tense verb ("become in this sentence)" construction to refer to an event that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past, and the "would + simple present tense verb" construction is used to refer to hypothetical future actions and habitual actions in the past. Further, Option A redundantly uses "more" alongside "increasingly", rendering it awkward and needlessly wordy; this usage is redundant, as both words convey a sense of increasing degree.

B: Correct. This answer choice uses the clause "the city air became increasingly acidic the closer one came to town", conveying the intended meaning - that the city air became increasingly acidic with proximity to the town. Further, Option B correctly uses the simple past tense verbs "became" and "came" to refer to events that concluded in the past. Additionally, Option B is free of any awkwardness/redundancy.

C: This answer choice incorrectly uses "coming closer to town" to modify "the city air", illogically implying that the city air was coming closer to town and becoming increasingly acidic as it did so; the intended meaning is that the city air became increasingly acidic with proximity to the town; please remember, in a “phrase + comma + noun” construction, the phrase must correctly modify the noun.

D: This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "the more the city air became increasingly acidic, the closer one was to town"; the construction of this phrase reverses the cause-effect relationship, incorrectly implying that one's proximity to town increased with the acidity of the city air; the intended meaning is that the city air became increasingly acidic with proximity to the town. Further, Option D redundantly uses "more" alongside "increasingly", rendering it awkward and needlessly wordy; this usage is redundant, as both words convey a sense of increasing degree.

E: This answer choice incorrectly uses the present participle ("verb+ing" - "becoming" in this sentence) and the "would + simple present tense verb ("become in this sentence)" construction to refer to events that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.

Hence, B is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Phrase Comma Subject" and "Subject Comma Phrase" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Dear guerrero25,
I'm happy to help with this.

This one is using a idiom that the GMAT loves. See this blog:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-gramm ... mparisons/
The form of this idiom is
"the" [comparative][clause #1], "the" [comparative][clause #2]
This idiom implies causality --- it implies that the changing comparative in the first clause is responsible for the changing comparative in the second clause.

We need the word "that" following "noting", so (E) is wrong.

Choices (B) & (C) don't have the form, so they are wrong.

Choice (D) follows the idiom correctly, but the order is strange --- it almost seems to imply that making the air more acidic would cause us to move closer to Manchester. That's not the intended meaning, and it doesn't really make sense.

Choice (A) follows the idiom correctly, and it also has the correct order of causality. As we move closer to Manchester, a direct result of that action would be to encounter air that is more acidic. Choice (A) is the best answer.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Mike doesn't choice B have the "the..the" idiom where i changed the font color, or am i misinterpreting your explanation?

OA is (B)
I picked A because of the similar reasoning as Mike's. I have no clue why the correct answer is B

Dear windofchange,
Apparently, the GMAT tolerates more variation in this idiomatic structure than they did previously. Since this is the case, choice (B) is the best answer, as skyhawk eloquently explained. Let me know if you have any further questions.
Mike

A)that the closer one came to town, the more the city air would become increasingly acidic Illogical sentence - it reads as if someone were the reason that rain becomes increasingly acidic; enteral state of the verb "became" should replace "would become" because the conditional tense indicates someone must get closer for the rain to become increasingly acidic

B)that the city air became increasingly acidic the closer one came to town OK; the trap is the inverted sentence structure

C)that coming closer to town, the city air became increasingly acidic The "coming closer to town" modifies "city air", making an illogical meaning -- it reads as if the relationship between the city air and the proximity of the city were the reason for acidity

D)that the more the city air became increasingly acidic, the closer one was to town ]Illogical sentence

E)the city air becoming increasingly acidic as one would come closer to town No verb in subordinate clause.

Meaning & Structure:

In past RAS published report..................., noting something.

Independent clause, -Ing modifier modifying the preceding clause.

In 1852 Robert Angus Smith published a detailed report of the chemistry of rain in a large area around the city of Manchester, England, noting that the closer one came to town, the more the city air would become increasingly acidic.

A)that the closer one came to town, the more the city air would become increasingly acidic
When RAS already noted something, then there is no point using 'WOULD'.
B)that the city air became increasingly acidic the closer one came to town
Correct !
C)that coming closer to town, the city air became increasingly acidic
Who is coming closer ?
D)that the more the city air became increasingly acidic, the closer one was to town
Cause effect reversed.
E)the city air becoming increasingly acidic as one would come closer to town
Would is the issue again.

This point confused me as well Mike. - More .... increasingly acidic sounded too verbose and wordy , thus incorrect

Dear himanshujovi,
I'm happy to respond. The "more .... increasingly acidic" is part of (A), which is the wrong answer. That is a bit wordy, but more importantly, it's redundant. A little wordy is not always a problem, but redundant is always wrong.

The OA is (B). Does this all make sense?

Mike

hi Mike

can option A be removed on the basis that double comparatives indicate a causality, and in option A the causality is wrong. i.e. being closer to city does not cause increase in air acidity

thanks

Meaning of the sentence :- RAS published a report on the chemistry of rain. In this report, he noted the relation between 'closeness of the rain to town' and 'acidic nature of city air'.

As two tasks are interrelated, we need parallelism between them:- 'The closer the rain came to the town, the acidity in air increased'

A)that the closer one came to town, the more the city air would become increasingly acidic. 'more' and 'increasingly' are redundant. IMO, if we had either 'more' or 'increase', the sentence would have been correct.

B)that the city air became increasingly acidic the closer one came to town. This is giving us the exact meaning that we wanted

C)that coming closer to town, the city air became increasingly acidic. Interrelation between two tasks is absent here. Instead, it gives the meaning that city air, coming closer to the town, became acidic.

D)that the more the city air became increasingly acidic, the closer one was to town. The relation here is reversed. Instead of having a structure of 'more X leads to more Y', it shows 'More Y leads to more X'

E)the city air becoming increasingly acidic as one would come closer to town. 'noting' present in the non-underlined part requires 'that'. In the absence of 'that', the sentence reads- RAS published a report noting the city air.... And this structure is wrong as report noted something about the air and not the air itslef.

Dear tagmag,
I'm happy to respond.

My friend, I am not sure where you heard that rule, the rule that "double comparatives indicate a causal relationship." That is 100% false. It has absolute no basis in reality. As a general rule, double comparatives are simply redundant and wrong.

Does all this make sense?

Mike

By double comparative I mean the structure like....The bigger it is, the better it is

Sent from my SM-N750 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Dear tagmag,

Thank you for clarifying. A structure such as "The bigger it is, the better it is" doesn't really have a name, and calling it a "double comparative" is likely to cause confusion. Choice (A) has a grammatical mistake that I would call a "double comparative":
....the more the city air would become increasingly acidic.
That is truly redundant and wrong, because two different comparatives are used for the same comparison. That's what I would call a "double comparative."

What you are discussing is a correct grammatical structure without an adequate name, but I would say that this structure doesn't necessarily imply causality. It merely indicates correlation. For example,

The more suntan lotion people buy, the more ice cream they buy.

That is a true statement. In this sentence, one does not cause the other: instead, both are caused by hot sunny weather.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

hi Mike
thanks for the input but this is what I read in Magoosh Gmat_Idiom book( nice book, cleared many of my doubts)


Excerpt from Magoosh Idiom pdf book

Suppose A and B are two items or qualities or quantities, and we want to express how one of
them changes as a result of the other one changing; that is, we want to express the interrelated
nature of their changes. This is the formal structure of the idiom:
“the” (comparative adjective or adverb) (independent clause about A), “the” (comparative
adjective or adverb) (independent clause about B)

1) According to Kepler’s Second Law of Planetary Motion, as a planet moves through its
elliptical orbit, it changes its orbital speed as its distance from the Sun changes: in particular,
the closer the planet is to the Sun, then it is moving its orbit that much faster.
A. the closer the planet is to the Sun, then it is moving in its orbit that much faster
B. the closer the planet is to the Sun, the faster it moves in its orbit
C. when the planet is closer to the Sun, the faster it moves in its orbit
D. when the planet is closer to the Sun, moving fasting in its orbit as well
E. by being closer to the Sun, also moving fasting in its orbit
2) Kepler’s Third Law says expresses the relationship between the semi-major axis of a
planet’s orbit and its orbital period: the further a planet’s orbit is from the Sun, the longer the
planet’s period of revolution around the Sun.
A. the further a planet’s orbit is from the Sun, the longer the planet’s period of revolution
around the Sun
B. when a planet’s orbit is further from the Sun, the longer the planet’s period of revolution
around the Sun
C. the further a planet’s orbit is from the Sun, thereby the planet’s period of revolution around
the Sun is that much longer
D. when a planet’s orbit is further from the Sun, the planet’s period of revolution around the
Sun being that much longer
E. by having an orbit further from the Sun, a planet also having a period of revolution around
the Sun being that much longer

The words “the” beginning each part are crucial, as is the comma separating the two parts.
This idiom stands alone as an independent clause, and therefore can be a complete sentence
by itself, or can play a role in a larger sentence. Here are some examples.
3) The higher they fly, the harder they fall.
4) The straighter an arrow, the truer it flies.
5) The hotter the surface temperature of a star, the more light per square meter it radiates.
6) “The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your
????????
If you understand the layout of this idiom, see whether that changes your answers to the
questions above. You may want to give them a second look before reading the solutions
below. May the Force be with you.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Only one of the answers in each follows this particular idiom perfectly, and the other four
answer choices in each are both idiomatically and grammatically incorrect. The correct
choices are (B) in the first and(A) in the second.

hi mike
please help...
I posted an excerpt from the magoosh idiom ebook related to my doubt that structure such as the more, the merrier is used to show causal relation.
can i rely on this.. please clear my doubt
thanks