Salt deposits and moisture threaten to destroy the Mohenjo-Daro excava

if this was the option then also it is not wrong:
(A) that flourished at the same time as did the civilizations

we can omit the verbs when the following condition are met:
1)we should have parallel construction involving verbs
2)verbs of both (or all if more than 2 structures are parallel) are exactly the same (in the same tense including)
3)omitting verb doesn't create ambiguity.

if above condition satisfy then we can omit the verb in ALL BUT the first.

coming to this question:
we have 2 parallel structure:
the site of an ancient civilization flourished
at the same time as
the civilizations in the Nile delta and the river valleys flourished.
or
DID the civilizations in the Nile delta and the river valleys


Now we can see all three condition are meeting.
so we can omit verb from 2nd parallel structure.
hope this much is clear.

similar simple example:
francis ran faster than xavier ran.
francis ran faster than xavier..
francis ran faster than did xavier.
francis ran faster than xavier did.

all the above 4 sentences are correct only thing is that 2 nd sentence is best

take another example when after removing verb sentence becomes ambiguous
the tycoon supported Jones
more than
anyone else supported jones.

first 2 conditions are satisfied ...lets remove the verb and check for ambiguity thing.

the tycoon supported Jones more than anyone else in the industry.

now here it is ambiguous.
how?
there can be 2 meanings.
1)the tycoon supported jones more than the tycoon supported anyone else
2)the tycoon supported jones more than anyone else supported jones.

now under these cases you are not going to OMIT the verbs.

hope it helps

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Concepts tested here: Verb Forms + Tenses + Redundancy/Awkwardness + Comparison

• The simple past tense is used to refer to the later of two events that concluded in the past.
• The past perfect tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had") is used when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past".

A: Correct. This answer choice correctly uses the simple past tense verb “flourished” to refer to actions that concluded in the past at the same time - the civilization found at Mohenjo-Daro flourishing and the civilizations found in in the Nile delta and the river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates flourishing. Further Option A is free of any awkwardness or redundancy.

B: Trap. This answer choice incorrectly uses the past perfect tense verb “had flourished” to refer to actions that took place in the past at the same time- the civilization found at Mohenjo-Daro flourishing and the civilizations found in in the Nile delta and the river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates flourishing; please remember, the past perfect tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had") is used only when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past".

C: This answer choice incorrectly uses the past perfect tense verb “had (flourished)” to refer to actions that took place in the past at the same time- the civilizations found at Mohenjo-Daro flourishing and the civilizations found in in the Nile delta and the river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates flourishing; please remember, the past perfect tense (marked by the use of helping verb "had") is used only when a sentence contains two actions in the past; the helping verb "had" is used with the action in the "greater past".

D: This answer choice incorrectly uses the present participle (“verb+ing” - “flourishing” in this sentence) 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. Further, Option D uses the needlessly wordy phrase “as those did”, leading to awkwardness.

E: This answer choice incorrectly uses the present participle (“verb+ing” - “flourishing” in this sentence) 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. Further, Option E uses the needlessly wordy phrase “as those did”, leading to awkwardness.

Hence, A 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 "Past Perfect Tense" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Salt deposits and moisture threaten to destroy the Mohenjo-Daro excavation in Pakistan, the site of an ancient civilization (that flourished at the same time as the civilizations) in the Nile delta and the river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.

(A) that flourished at the same time as the civilizations
- 'that' introduces an essential modifier for the 'civilization' preceding the phrase. the use of past tense would make the mohenjo civilization exists in the same time as the civilizations in the nile and tigris/euphrates had

(B) that had flourished at the same time as had the civilizations
- 'past perfect' suggests the Mohenjo civilization died out before the civilizations in the Nilte delta and river valleys of tigris and euphrates

(C) that flourished at the same time those had
- 'those does not have a clear referent'

(D) flourishing at the same time as those did
- 'those' does not have a referent

(E) flourishing at the same time as those were
- 'those' does not have a referent

A it is.

Salt deposits and moisture threaten to destroy the Mohenjo-Daro excavation in Pakistan, the site of an ancient civilization that flourished at the same time as the civilizations in the Nile delta and the river valleys of Tigris and Euphrates.

a. that flourished at the same time as the civilizations
b. that had flourished at the same time as had the civilizations
c. that flourished at the same time those had
d. flourishing at the same time as those did
e. flourishing at the same time as those were

Just one query for option d,e- is it wrong to use present participle (flourishing) for something in happened in past or we can go ahead use that
whether D will be correct if i say:

flourishing at the same time as the civilizations

Waiting for your valuable replies

I have the same doubt regarding this question.

The OA is A, but I am not convinced.

(A) that flourished at the same time as the civilizations

It has to be:

(A) that flourished at the same time as did the civilizations

or Am I missing any grammar rule??

Please comment

Salt deposits and moisture threaten to destroy the Mohenjo-Daro excavation in Pakistan, the site of an ancient civilization that flourished at the same time as the civilizations in the Nile delta and the river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.

(A) that flourished at the same time as the civilizations
(B) that had flourished at the same time as had the civilizations
(C) that flourished at the same time those had
(D) flourishing at the same time as those did
(E) flourishing at the same time as those were

Hi

I am confused at the application of ellipsis over here.
Though I am not able to justify with any grammatical rule, I constantly feel the correct answer should have been:-
that flourished at the same time as DID the civilizations

I perceive this sentence as if the "time" is being compared to "civilization"

Original sentence says:

ancient civilization flourished at the same time as the civilizations in the Nile delta and the river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.

So, we have "civilization" before and after the comparison operator. Hence, that would be the thing that is being compared.

If the sentence was:

ancient civilization flourished at the same time as when human beings discovered fire.

Then the comparison would have been between "same time" and "when human beings discovered fire" (both indicators of "time", the way both are "civilizations" in option A).

With "did" or "flourished" as well, option A would be correct, but since the sentence is completely clear even without it, "did"/"flourished" is redundant.

Another example:

Children exhibit more tendency to be susceptible to bronchitis than adults.

Now this is a problematic sentence, because it could mean either of the following:
i) Children exhibit more tendency to be susceptible to bronchitis than to adults. In other words:
Children exhibit more tendency to be susceptible to bronchitis than children exhibit tendency to be susceptible to adults

or

ii) Children exhibit more tendency to be more susceptible to bronchitis than adults (exhibit tendency to susceptible to bronchitis).

So, in this case, since there is an ambiguity, we need to introduce "do"/"exhibit" after the comparison operator:
Children exhibit more tendency to be susceptible to bronchitis than adults do.

Dear ayushman,
With all due respect, your example in the bronchitis sentence is not very good, only because the idea of a "tendency to be susceptible to adults" is nonsensical and meaningless. That phrase is unidiomatic and has no sensible meaning at all. Because of this, version (ii) is the only logical reading of the sentence, and thus there is no ambiguity in the original sentence.

I think you were searching more for a sentence such as this:
I like John more than Harry.
which could mean
(1) I like John more than I like Harry.
or
(2) I like John more than Harry likes John.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Oh that would be too simple:).

Question number 98, OG-13, option A:

Ranked as one of the most important of Europe's young playwrights, Franz Xaver Kroetz has written 40 plays; his works—translated into more than 30 languages—are produced more often than any contemporary German dramatist.

OE: A dramatist cannot be produced and cannot be compared to works.

Again, "dramatist can be produced" is a non-sensical interpretation, but OG rules out this option because of this interpretation.

Can you please share your thoughts.

Dear ayushman,
I'm happy to respond.

As always, this question from the OG is fantastic. The folks at GMAC are extraordinary at crafting these gems.

Part of what is intriguing about this sentence is the break created by the semicolon. Mr. Kroetz is the subject of the first half, and naively we might expect him to be the subject throughout, because he is ultimately the "doer" of everything discussed in this sentence. The first clause subtly creates the expectation that we will be comparing people. BUT, the comparison is ultimate not between people, but between plays, and plays are the subject of the second independent clause, the one that follows the semicolon. You are perfectly correct --- we absolutely cannot compare people to plays, and people most definitely are not "produced."
That's precisely why option (A) is trainwreck-wrong:
... his works .... are produced more often than any contemporary German dramatist.
To correct this ---
(a) we need to compare plays to plays --- we could say "plays of" or simply "those of"
(b) the word "any" without the word "other" creates a logical problem.
To see this logical problem, consider a simpler version, a comparison of people.
Franz Xaver Kroetz has published more than any contemporary German dramatist.
In that sentence, the grammar is correct, the parallelism is correct, but there's a grave logical problem. Mr. Kroetz is a contemporary German dramatist. If he has published more than any contemporary German dramatist, then "any contemporary German dramatist" includes himself, and we are saying that he publishes more than himself!! We avoid this mistake by including the word "other."
The OA, (D), fixes both of these problems:
(D) Ranked as one of the most important of Europe's young playwrights, Franz Xaver Kroetz has written 40 plays; his works—translated into more than 30 languages—are produced more often than those of any other contemporary German dramatist.
It would also be correct add the verb:
Ranked as one of the most important of Europe's young playwrights, Franz Xaver Kroetz has written 40 plays; his works—translated into more than 30 languages—are produced more often than are those of any other contemporary German dramatist.
Including that verb is perfectly fine, but absolutely unnecessary, because the parallelism is 100% clear without it.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hello Mike, all that you mention makes sense.

But perhaps the intent of my citing this OG question was not very clear in my post.

In my original posted, I had posted a sentence:

Children exhibit more tendency to be susceptible to bronchitis than adults.

What you had suggested in your post was that this sentence "cannot" be interpreted as: Children exhibit more tendency to be susceptible to bronchitis than (to) adults, since this would be meaningless.

I then posted Mr. Kroetz example from OG to illustrate that OG interprets option A as "dramatist can be produced", despite the fact that this interpretation is meaningless. On this basis, OG regards A as incorrect.

Hope I was able to explain my intent of citing the example of Mr. Kroetz.

By the way, coming back to my example: Children exhibit more tendency to be susceptible to bronchitis than adults, it struck me tht there actually are more than one ways to fix it:

i) Children exhibit more tendency to be susceptible to bronchitis than adults do...or.
ii) Children exhibit more tendency than adults to be susceptible to bronchitis.

Dear ayushman,
It seems to me you are trying to fix something that doesn't need to be fixed. The sentence:
Children exhibit more tendency to be susceptible to bronchitis than adults.
exhibits no logical problems with respect to the comparison. The comparison is already 100% clear, and nothing needs to be fixed. That sentence is awkward and unidiomatic. The phrasing "exhibit more tendency" is a very indirect and awkward way of phrasing this. It would be far more direct to say:
Children tend to be more susceptible to bronchitis than adults.
or simply
Children are more susceptible to bronchitis than adults.
That sentence also has a 100% clear comparison. There is absolutely no problem. We could add a verb at the end "than adults do" ---- that's not necessary, but some people would choose to add it for clarity. The sentence is 100% correct either with or without that verb at the end. Does this make sense?

Mike

Hi there,

Ellipsis only creates problems when it leads to ambiguity in the intended meaning of the sentence. "Civilization" and "time" are not parallel entities in this context, since this comparison isn't logical. So, it's perfectly fine to leave out the verb. The writer means to say that all the civilizations referred to in the sentence flourished at the same time. This meaning comes through without any ambiguity in the original sentence.

I hope this helps to clarify your doubt!

Regards,
Meghna

'As' is indeed followed by a clause. The subject and verb of the clause are:

subject is: the civilizations in the Nile delta and the river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates
verb is: did

the site of an ancient civilization that flourished at the same time as the civilizations in the Nile delta and the river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates did

The verb is implied because it is in ellipsis.

Also, please note that 'As' need not be followed by a clause always. 'As' can be used as a conjunction or as a preposition.
If we use 'As' as a preposition, then you don't need to follow it with a clause. (this sentence itself is an example)

Ex: I think of you as my friend.
Ex: As a child, I always wanted to be a pilot.
----------------------------------------------------------
Press +1 Kudos if this helped you.

How is "that" in "the site of an ancient civilization that" modifying "civilization"? "of an ancient civilization" is a propositional phrase thus i thought "that" is modifying "site".

Why is this understanding incorrect?

Hi pranav6082, this entire concept of propositional phrase needs to be applied only in a given clause. Notice there that the following are separate clauses:

i) Salt deposits and moisture threaten to destroy the Mohenjo-Daro excavation in Pakistan, the site of an ancient civilization
- Notice that propositional phrase of an ancient civilization appears as part of this clause

ii) that flourished at the same time as the civilizations in the Nile delta and the river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.
- This is a separate clause (a relative/dependent clause)

So, you can't mix and match the two clauses. that (appearing in the second clause) will just follow the normal rule of what that can modify, in this case civilization.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses this concept of propositional phrase, its application and examples in significant detail. Have attached the corresponding section of the book, for your reference.

I omitted options D and E based on the ing form - meaning flourishing is happening now (this doesnt make any sense). Is this correct?