There seems to be a broad range of international policy issues on whic

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION



• HIGHLIGHTS

Comparisons

Theoretically this comparison could fall out in two ways:

(1) Mitterrand's views are more compatible with Reagan's views than the views of Mitterrand's predecessor [D'Estaing] were [D'Estaing]
(2) Mitterrand's views are more compatible with Reagan's views than were the views of former U.S. President Carter, Reagan's predecessor

But "theoretically possible" does not mean "the correct answer" or even "grammatical and rhetorically forceful."

From the context of the sentence, we need to decide what is being compared.

Option 1 is logical.
The context is international policy issues.
We care about how leaders of different countries approach international issues.
The current French leader is more compatible with the current U.S. leader than the former French leader was compatible with the current U.S. leader.
Mitterrand (France) v Reagan (U.S.) and D'Estaing (France) v. Reagan (U.S.) make sense as interesting subjects of contrast.

Option 2 is not logical.
Who cares about whether the current French president is more compatible with the current U.S. president than the former U.S. president was with the current U.S. president?
The former U.S. president isn't working in the international arena right now.

Issues I saw raised in posts

-- nothing is wrong with his
Pronoun rule: a possessive pronoun can always have a possessive antecedent (his . . . The French Socialist president's)
Pronoun rule: if you have learned about "possessive poison," then you need to alter what you have learned. GMAC has been subtly (and finally, not subtly) announcing "possessive poison" is not a basis upon which you should eliminate an option immediately.
-- please read my post here.

-- the verb were is needed in option A.
Often, you can delete a "to be" verb from the second part of a comparison. But not always.

THE PROMPT


• Meaning? The views of Mitterrand are closer to Reagan;s [views] than the views of Mitterrand's predecessor were (D'Estaing)

THE OPTIONS


• I've scanned all the options quickly. In this option, I have stricken the "There seems to be sentence" because it makes no difference in analyzing the sentence.

• Meaning? The current president of France is more similar to Reagan in terms of foreign policy viewpoints than the former president of France was.

• I see one tiny issue: the word "his" MAY be ambiguous.
-- does "his predecessor" refer to Reagan's predecessor? Or to Mitterrand's?
-- Mitterrand's. As I explained above, this contrast makes a lot more sense than pitting the current French president's compatibility against the U.S. president before Reagan. Once again, if you believe that his his no antecedent, please read my post about GMAT and its changed position on "possessive poison."
KEEP. And compare every answer to this one, because it's good.


• always wrong, no exceptions: do not use the "double possessive."
[color=#0000ff]Correct: Ys of X. (Ys = poems, X = Elizabeth Bishop)
-- The poems of Elizabeth Bishop haunt me.
Correct: X's Ys.
-- Elizabeth's Bishop's poems haunt me.
Always wrong: Ys of X's
The poems of Elizabeth Bishop's haunt me.
I marked the two parts of option B in which double possessives are used.
Eliminate B


• Don't use seem in the same clause twice in this way. Such usage is not standard.
-- The sentence has established that there seems to be . . . a something. That something IS.
-- The sentence essentially says that there seems to be a something in which something else seems.
-- We would say either "There seems to be an area in which X is the case," OR "X seems to be the case."
• now his is probably ambiguous.
-- if the sentence wants to say that Mitterrand's views are more compatible with Reagan's views than
WITH Mitterrand's predecessor (a third logically silly sentence), there should be a second "with."
-- if the sentence wants to say (2) above,
Current French President's views ARE more compatible with R's than those [views] of his predecessor's.
A bit of parallelism is suggested in (A): the subject of the comparison and the logical object of comparison both have a verb.
• Compare to (A). No contest.
Eliminate C


• We need with or were here, and we have neither.
• With would tell us that (P) has more in common with (Q) than [P has in common] WITH (R.)
• the verb were would also clean things up.
-- French President and U.S. President are in the present (in this situation).
-- "were" would help: . . .are more compatible with the views of Ronald Reagan than the views of his predecessor were. (How compatible the former French President's views were with those of Pres. Reagan is a contextually appropriate question. How compatible the former U.S. Presidents views were with those of Pres.Reagan is not of much importance.)


• This option has the same problem with seem as (C) does.
• "than those of his predecessor" would be better with a verb.
• compare to (A), which beats (E) easily.
Eliminate E

The answer is A


COMMENTS

mgupta20
Tracy95 , mggmat19 , and elavendan1 welcome to GMAT CLub.

Wow.
I'm kinda dazed from writing and rewriting this answer.
(Every once in a long while it is really hard to know how best to explain something.)

I think this question is the in the top five hardest that I have posted.
The question is not flawless; very few non-official questions are.

But this question is very good for forcing aspirants to think about how context affects grammar and meaning.
The context is international affairs.
We care about the leaders of the countries and how they interact.

I am glad to see zero "knee-jerk" answers. By that phrase I mean that everyone tried to engage with the material and did not start spouting off rules.

Everyone who gave a good effort at an explanation will get a smiley face, unless you are new, in which case you get a smiley face, full stop. (Just make sure that you explain. )
Everyone who gave a correct answer and good explanation before the OA reveal will get kudos.
Correct answers with explanations after the OA will get a smiley face.

D, because all references and comparisons are correct in this answer choice. Also use of 'seem' is not needed twice.

Posted from my mobile device

IMHO, B.
Analysis: We're comparing the views of France's Socialist President with those of Reagan's and the views of his predecessor's
A- predecessor - We're comparing views and predecessor. Wrong
B. the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with those of President Reagan’s (views) than were those of his predecessor’s (views)
C. President Reagan - We're comparing views and Reagan. Wrong
D. France’s Socialist president’s views are more compatible with President Reagan’s than his predecessor’s - Ellipsis might imply that Reagan's France’s Socialist president’s views.Also, comparison is how the views are compatible. - Wrong.
E. predecessor - We're comparing views and predecessor. Wrong

Answer (A): the views of President F, are more comp with R's than were those [views] of his [R's] predecessor.

Hi folks,
IMO C.
Given sentence has a parallelism/comparison error.

Let's start with what those in given choices could refer to and see whether we can rule a few incorrect ones out.
In A,B & C, those refer to "the views": OK
In D & E, those refer to "France’s Socialist president’s views": Not OK.
So, we can rule D & E out.

Now lets compare the meaning changes and other issues, if we can spot some, among A, B & C.
A & B use "were" in second entity of comparison but do not use preposition "with", making the construction incorrect.
A) the views of France’s Socialist presidentare more compatible with President Reagan’s(views) than were those(views) of his predecessor
Similarly in B:
B) the views of France’s Socialist presidentare more compatible with those(views) of President Reagan’s than were those(views) of his predecessor’s?? plain wrong

We are left with only option C. Lets see how C performs.
C) the views of France’s Socialist president seem more compatible with those (views) of President Reagan than his predecessor’s (views)
_________________

There seems to be a broad range of international policy issues on which the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor.


A) the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor
-The views of X are more compatible with Y's than were those of his Z. It means that the views of X and Y are more compatible than the views of Y and Z. I somehow feel that this is the correct answer.

B) the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with those of President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor’s
-The views of X are more compatible with those of Y's than were those of his Z's. This is definitely wrong - if we are using "those of" than we should not use President Reagan's. Only one of these can be used in a sentence.
Incorrect.

C) the views of France’s Socialist president seem more compatible with those of President Reagan than his predecessor’s
-The views of X seem more compatible with those of Y than his Z's. "Seem" seems redundant :D
Incorrect.

D) France’s Socialist president’s views are more compatible with President Reagan’s than his predecessor’s
-X's views are more compatible with Y's than his Z's. I am not sure if I am on the right track but I feel there should be a "with" before "his predecessor’s".
Incorrect. (I would pick this option as my 2nd choice though).

E) France’s Socialist president’s views seem more compatible with President Reagan’s than those of his predecessor.
-X's views seem more compatible with Y's than those of Z. "Seem" seems redundant.
Incorrect.

Answer is A.


There seems to be a broad range of international policy issues on which the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor.


A) the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor the meaning here is clear and concise : The socialist president's views agree more with Reagan's than did his predecessor's. This is the right answer. Meaning is clear and there is no double possessive

B) the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with those of President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor’s
this would have been fine if it did not use the double possessive: those of his predecesdor's

C) the views of France’s Socialist president seem more compatible with those of President Reagan than his predecessor’s
the issue with this is the ambiguity. Are the views of the socialist president more in tune with Reagan's than they are in tune with his predecessor's or are the views of the socialist president more in tune with Reagan's than his predecessor's were in tune with Reagan's.This is awfully baffling and does not make the meaning clear. the fact that we do not know the exact referent of his makes this construction very awkward. Add to that the additional "seem" which adds some distortion to the original meaning

D) France’s Socialist president’s views are more compatible with President Reagan’s than his predecessor’s
another grammatically correct answer that has the same ambiguity issues as C. Once again, I have to ask : Are the views of the socialist president more in tune with Reagan's than they are in tune with his predecessor's or are the views of the socialist president more in tune with Reagan's than his predecessor's were in tune with Reagan's?.Yikes


E) France’s Socialist president’s views seem more compatible with President Reagan’s than those of his predecessor Another ambiguity issue. The use of seem here somehow gives us a slightly different meaning.Like C and D, I have to ask : Are the views of the socialist president more in tune with Reagan's than they are in tune with his predecessor's or are the views of the socialist president more in tune with Reagan's than his predecessor's were in tune with Reagan's?. The meaning is not clear and the verb is needed here

Option A: There seems to be a broad range of international policy issues on which the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor. Correct.
In option A, the views of France's Socialist president on international policy issues are more compatible with President Reagan's (i.e. the views of President Reagan) than those of his predecessor were [compatible with the views of President Reagan]. It can be seen that two comparisons are made and there is no ambiguity about what the comparisons are about, and what two elements are being compared. On one hand, is a comparison between the views of the current French Socialist president and the views of President Reagan on international policies. On the other hand, is a comparison between the views that the predecessor of the current French president had on international policies and the views of president Reagan on international policy. The meaning is clear and unambiguous. Keep A.

Option B: There seems to be a broad range of international policy issues on which the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with those of President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor’s. Option B has a double possessive error. Except for the double possessive error, option B is identical to option A. Eliminate B, keep A.

Option C: There seems to be a broad range of international policy issues on which the views of France’s Socialist president seem more compatible with those of President Reagan than [were] his predecessor’s. Without were, there is ambiguity in the comparison. The first part of the comparison is okay. The views of the current French president on international policies are compared with the views of President Reagan. In the second part of the comparison, it is not clear whether the views of current French president are compared with the views of his predecessor or that the views of the predecessor are compared with the views of President Reagan. Eliminate option C.

Option D: There seems to be a broad range of international policy issues on which France’s Socialist president’s views are more compatible with President Reagan’s than [were] his predecessor’s. The same ambiguity in option C exists in option D because of the omission of were in the sentence. Eliminate option D.

Option E: There seems to be a broad range of international policy issues on which France’s Socialist president’s views seem more compatible with President Reagan’s than [were] those of his predecessor. The same ambiguity issue with the second part of the comparison in options C and D exists in option E as well. The sentence would have been clearer if were is inserted.

The right answer is therefore option A.

I think it might help to differentiate these 2 comparisons first:
1) A is more compatible with B than (A is) with C
2) A is more compatible with B than C is (compatible with B)

With these 2 cases in mind, let's go thru the choices:
A) the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor
=> CORRECT comparison case (2)
B) the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with those of President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor’s
=> also comparison case (2) but wrong as there are double possessives in "those of President Reagan’s" and "those of his predecessor’s"
C) the views of France’s Socialist president seem more compatible with those of President Reagan than his predecessor’s
=> if the intended comparison is case (1), this choice is wrong because a "with" before "his predecessor’s" is missing
=> if the intended comparison is case (2), this choice is still wrong because a "seemed" after "his predecessor’s" is missing
D) France’s Socialist president’s views are more compatible with President Reagan’s than his predecessor’s
=> if the intended comparison is case (1), this choice is wrong because a "with" before "his predecessor’s" is missing
=> if the intended comparison is case (2), this choice is still wrong because a "were" before "his predecessor’s" is missing
E) France’s Socialist president’s views seem more compatible with President Reagan’s than those of his predecessor
=> similar error to (C)

There seems to be a broad range of international policy issues on which the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor.

There are two comparisons to match. The views of france's president are compatible with views of president Reagan than views of his predecessor's
possessive form - Henry's car. Whose car? Henry's OR rephrasing, Car of Henry's. Car of Henry will sound odd.

A) the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor
'were' refers to compatible. we don't really need to repeat compatible after than. compatible with X than Y. Comparison is between X and Y
the views of France's president -> is a bit odd as we want to refer to something that belongs to someone, so views of president's will be a better choice

B) the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with those of President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor’s
those -> refers to views -> views of Reagan's -> looks fine .
again in this we have repetition of 'compatible' by using were , which is not needed
the views of France's president is odd

C) the views of France’s Socialist president seem more compatible with those of President Reagan than his predecessor’s
this has same error of the views of President , also it repeats the error for President Reagan, it should be President Reagan's

D) France’s Socialist president’s views are more compatible with President Reagan’s than his predecessor’s
this is the other way writing possessive and is at times more concise than other version.
president's views are more compatible with president Reagan's <views> than his predecessor's <views> . Looks good , keep the answer!

E) France’s Socialist president’s views seem more compatible with President Reagan’s than those of his predecessor
this also uses concise version in this case to refer to president's views. however we are missing the possessive form of his predecessor i.e. predecessor's. also there is a parallelism error
compatible with A & B. A and B should be parallel. D has a better parallelism.

D is the answer!

This is a very juicy sentence that tests comparison and possessive nouns. One must be extra careful about what refers to what while solving such questions.

A) the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor
What does were do here? The views of person A are more compatible with B's than [with] those [views] of D. There is no need to have a verb to be.

B) the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with those of President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor’s
What does were do here? There is no need to have a verb to be. Also, look at the simplified version of comparison under (A) and compare to that in this option: those of his predecessor (or, alternatively, his predecessor's [views]) is correct and those of his predecessor's is wrong.

C) the views of France’s Socialist president seem more compatible with those of President Reagan than his predecessor’s
The views of France's [Socialist] president seem more compatible with [what?] with those [views] of President Reagan than his predecessor's [i.e. views of his predecessor]. Okay, one can also say the views of the Socialist president of France or the views of the president of France who is a socialist.

D) France’s Socialist president’s views are more compatible with President Reagan’s than his predecessor’s
While the last part of the sentence (comparison) is fine, the highlighted piece is awkward and not as clean as "the views of France's president".

E) France’s Socialist president’s views seem more compatible with President Reagan’s than those of his predecessor[/quote]
This option, as (D), has the comparison done correctly, but the highlighted part is awkward and makes little sense.

This is going to be a fun one I am going with option C.




I feel both D and E make the same mistake as A. his refers back to who? We don't have a noun. If we have used President Reagan then it should be used in Noun form but that is not the case.

Note : This is an attempt because you can't move to the next question without picking an answer to the question in front of you. Will see how this goes.

I must say this is tricky one. There is a close call between A and D, but i'd prefer D over A.

There seems to be a broad range of international policy issues on which the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor.

idiom to be considered: ... more x than Y
A) ..... broad range of (international policy) issues on which views of x are more compatible with y's (views) than views of z -
e.g. ....views of Indian PM are more compatible with Obama's than were views of his predecessor means views of Indian PM are more compatible Obama's than Indian PM's views were not more compatible than views of his (Obama's) predecessor. Here, structure x and y does not look parallel though logically parallel but inclusion of verb, were creates doubt about time frame.

D) ..... broad range of (international policy) issues on which x's views are more compatible with y's than z's -
e.g. ....Indian PM's views are more compatible with Obama's than his predecessor's means Indian PM's views are more compatible with Obama's views than Indian PM's views are more compatible than his (Obama's) predecessor's - Seems more concise than A

A) the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatibe with President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor[/color] - Same as mention above.
B) the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with those of President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor’s - redundancy error, those and reagan's
C) the views of France’s Socialist president seem more compatible with those of President Reagan than his predecessor’s - usage of seem changes the meaning of original sentence.
D) France’s Socialist president’s views are more compatible with President Reagan’s than his predecessor’s - Same as mentioned above
E) France’s Socialist president’s views seem more compatible with President Reagan’s than those of his predecessor - usage of seem changes the meaning of original sentence.

There seems to be a broad range of international policy issues on which the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor.



Views of X,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Y's Views,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,views of Z.
not parallel
+ meaning issue. his has to refer to reagan, not france president

wrong comparison
Views of X is compared to views of Y's views. we only need Y. and later pat of the sentence also has the same problem

this is fine.Views...x...views..y......his refers to reagan.
correct

His is referring to??wrong

His is referring to?
wrong

Before doing the comparison question, i often spend few seconds to clarify what are the "Apple" and "Orange".

In this question, if we do not have the verb "were" we can have 2 situations:
1) the views of X are more compatible with the views of Y than with the views of Z
2) the views of X are more compatible with the views of Y than the views of Z are more compatible with the views of Y
So, there must have "were" to avoid the ambiguity.
Only A and B left.
B. the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with those of President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor’s. We already have [those of] we do not need ['s].
B can be rewrite as: the views of X are more compatible with the views of Y views than were the views of Z views
So incorrect.

IMO A is the correct answer

Close call between D & A but the Answer is A in my opinion.

the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor.
The question that arises in comparisons like these is do we need the verb or not.
Indeed when we are comparing nouns, we dont need the verb repeated in the second half.
But in this scenario, we need the verb to be repeated because the comparison in the given sentence can be misconstrued if the verb is not there.

A) the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor.
Correct.

B) the views of France’s Socialist president are more compatible with those of President Reagan’s than were those of his predecessor’s
We dont need the possesive of predecessor here.

C) the views of France’s Socialist president seem more compatible with those of President Reagan than his predecessor’s

D) France’s Socialist president’s views are more compatible with President Reagan’s than his predecessor’s.
This could mean two things :
France’s Socialist president’s views are more compatible with President Reagan’s than his predecessor’s views are compatible with views of President Reagan.
OR
France’s Socialist president’s views are more compatible with President Reagan’s than France’s Socialist president’s views are compatible with his predecessor’s views.

To avoid ambiguity, Choice A is better.

E) France’s Socialist president’s views seem more compatible with President Reagan’s than those of his predecessor

The official explanation is herel
_________________

Wow. This sentence gave me a heck of a headache (not kidding).

Great explanation, especially the part about "possessive poison"! Thank you.