While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other : GMAT Sentence Correction (SC) - Page 4
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 22 Jan 2017, 17:49

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 03 Apr 2014
Posts: 16
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [5] , given: 43

Re: While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 May 2014, 11:49
5
KUDOS
D is, i guess, wrong because it uses 'to run' along with 'as for'.
i mean take B, "cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for" is the correct usage.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3712
Followers: 1298

Kudos [?]: 5859 [2] , given: 66

Re: While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 May 2014, 17:19
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
rishi081992 wrote:
D is, i guess, wrong because it uses 'to run' along with 'as for'.
i mean take B, "cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for" is the correct usage.

Dear rishi081992
I'm happy to respond.

Choice (D) has multiple problems. Here it is:
(D) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants, whereas the electricity they generate is more expensive, stemming from the fixed costs of building nuclear plants.
I would say the first part, before the first comma, is more-or-less correct. It may be a little awkward, but there is nothing unambiguously incorrect about that first part.
One problem is ambiguous pronoun "they" --- to whom does this refer? The "nuclear plants" or the "other types of power plants"? That is a major logical flaw.
The whole arrangement of the second half of the sentence has a choppy awkward feel to it. Among other things, the putative cause of the increased expense, the building costs, is illogically relegated to a parenthetical structure, and is not part of a direct & powerful statement of cause & effect.
Overall, choice (D) is just a poor way to phrase the information, and (B) is much more powerful & clear & direct.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Intern
Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Posts: 15
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 590 Q44 V30
GPA: 3.08
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 10

Re: While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Jul 2014, 03:40
read many queries related to this question and they were very helpful,still i have some doubts regarding this question. i will present my analysis of the question with the doubts.please help.

While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants, it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes it more expensive for them to generate electricity.

A. While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants, it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes it more expensive for them to generate electricity.
B While the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants, the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants make the electricity they generate more expensive.
C. Even though it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants, it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes the electricity they generate more expensive.
D. It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants, whereas the electricity they generate is more expensive, stemming from the fixed costs of building nuclear plants.
E. The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as other types of power plants, but the electricity they generate is made more expensive because of the fixed costs stemming from building nuclear plants.

Option A) incorrect.There are 3 possible meanings of this question so there is ambiguity.

1)While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as(it does to run) other types of power plants,

2)While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants(costs)

DOUBT 1) can the above sentence also be one of the comparisons..??

3)AS is used as a function/role.

Subject verb error . makes in incorrect
last that is ambiguous.
last IT is without a referent.
DOUBT 2) Is the last it a placeholder ?? or am i correct ?

Option b) Preposition FOR is correctly used.
as per payal'smethod for elipsis:

while the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants is ( correct version)
while the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as that for other types of power plants.
while the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants.
DOUBT 3) While the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as (the cost ) for other types of power plants.
is this unidiomatic.?/ cant even the cost be omitted. ??

my point is that i still feel that there is ambiguity in this sentence.

option C) incorrect.S-V error.makes is incorrect
Even though it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants,

DOUBT 4) can u please help me to apply the ellipsis method here as we did in option b.

Even though it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants,

even though it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as it costs to run other types of plants.
even though it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as that for other types of plants.

that can not refer to "to run" what should be used instead of that.

how is the preposition FOR used here ?

Option D)incorrect.

ambiguous comparison.
stemming is incorrect because as a verbing modifier the subject electricity should perferom the action of stemming .
Option E)incorrect.

ambiguous comparison.
after and before but same voice should be used as the subjects are not the same.
Manager
Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Posts: 131
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 260

While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Mar 2015, 04:11
mikemcgarry wrote:
rishi081992 wrote:
D is, i guess, wrong because it uses 'to run' along with 'as for'.
i mean take B, "cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for" is the correct usage.

Dear rishi081992
I'm happy to respond.

Choice (D) has multiple problems. Here it is:
(D) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants, whereas the electricity they generate is more expensive, stemming from the fixed costs of building nuclear plants.
I would say the first part, before the first comma, is more-or-less correct. It may be a little awkward, but there is nothing unambiguously incorrect about that first part.
One problem is ambiguous pronoun "they" --- to whom does this refer? The "nuclear plants" or the "other types of power plants"? That is a major logical flaw.
The whole arrangement of the second half of the sentence has a choppy awkward feel to it. Among other things, the putative cause of the increased expense, the building costs, is illogically relegated to a parenthetical structure, and is not part of a direct & powerful statement of cause & effect.
Overall, choice (D) is just a poor way to phrase the information, and (B) is much more powerful & clear & direct.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Hey Mike,

Could we solve this question ONLY by using S-V agreement and pronoun ambiguity?

A) Violates S-V
C) Violates S-V
D) "they" is ambiguous: 'other types of power plants' is closer.
E) "they" is ambiguous: 'other types of power plants' is closer

B) S-V agreement is met; 'they' is now closer to the 'nuclear power plants' and actually 'nuclear plants' has been repeated in the second part of the sentence, and only after this repetition the 'they' pronoun appears. In contrast, in D and E, 'they' appears before the second repetition of the nuclear plants in the sentence.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3712
Followers: 1298

Kudos [?]: 5859 [1] , given: 66

Re: While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

09 Mar 2015, 09:14
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
apolo wrote:
Hey Mike,
Could we solve this question ONLY by using S-V agreement and pronoun ambiguity?

A) Violates S-V
C) Violates S-V
D) "they" is ambiguous: 'other types of power plants' is closer.
E) "they" is ambiguous: 'other types of power plants' is closer

B) S-V agreement is met; 'they' is now closer to the 'nuclear power plants' and actually 'nuclear plants' has been repeated in the second part of the sentence, and only after this repetition the 'they' pronoun appears. In contrast, in D and E, 'they' appears before the second repetition of the nuclear plants in the sentence.

Dear apolo,
I'm happy to respond.

My friend, the "ONLY" approach is not the most productive approach to studying GMAT SC. When you are studying these sentences, your job is to understand, in depth, everything wrong with each wrong answer choice. Any approach which allows you to jump to a "done with that" perspective on a question cuts short deeper kinds of understanding.

Having said that, SVA certainly is one good reason to reject both (A) & (C). The pronoun usage in (D) &(E) are problematic, but not too different from what might be acceptable. It's very important to understand not merely the grammatical issues, but the rhetorical issues: the logical flow of the sentence, the power of phrasing things a certain way, what sounds clear vs. awkward, etc. Rhetorical Construction is one of the eight major areas tested on the GMAT SC. For more on this, see:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/rhetorical ... orrection/

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Manager
Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Posts: 131
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 260

While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Mar 2015, 02:58
mikemcgarry wrote:
apolo wrote:
Hey Mike,
Could we solve this question ONLY by using S-V agreement and pronoun ambiguity?

A) Violates S-V
C) Violates S-V
D) "they" is ambiguous: 'other types of power plants' is closer.
E) "they" is ambiguous: 'other types of power plants' is closer

B) S-V agreement is met; 'they' is now closer to the 'nuclear power plants' and actually 'nuclear plants' has been repeated in the second part of the sentence, and only after this repetition the 'they' pronoun appears. In contrast, in D and E, 'they' appears before the second repetition of the nuclear plants in the sentence.

Dear apolo,
I'm happy to respond.

My friend, the "ONLY" approach is not the most productive approach to studying GMAT SC. When you are studying these sentences, your job is to understand, in depth, everything wrong with each wrong answer choice. Any approach which allows you to jump to a "done with that" perspective on a question cuts short deeper kinds of understanding.

Having said that, SVA certainly is one good reason to reject both (A) & (C). The pronoun usage in (D) &(E) are problematic, but not too different from what might be acceptable. It's very important to understand not merely the grammatical issues, but the rhetorical issues: the logical flow of the sentence, the power of phrasing things a certain way, what sounds clear vs. awkward, etc. Rhetorical Construction is one of the eight major areas tested on the GMAT SC. For more on this, see:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/rhetorical ... orrection/

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Thanks Mike.
My question did not mean that we should only restrict ourselves to purely grammatical rules.
Actually I asked this question to know whether using pronoun ambiguity is a safe tool for eliminating some choices in the case of this question; that turned out to be: not! (as you have explained in the bold part of your answer).
I know from MGMAT that generally slight pronoun ambiguity might be tolerated, and even some of the published questions in OG have some slight pronoun ambiguity in their correct answer choices.
However, for me it was interesting that the right choice in this questions ALSO has the least problematic usage of the pronoun 'they' compared to answer choices E and D. So I was just curious to know whether this has happened intentionally or simply accidentally.

In contrast to S-V agreement, for example, pronoun ambiguity in some cases, like the one in this question, seems not to be a pretty suitable reason used for eliminating a choice.
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3712
Followers: 1298

Kudos [?]: 5859 [1] , given: 66

Re: While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

10 Mar 2015, 10:28
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
apolo wrote:
Thanks Mike.
My question did not mean that we should only restrict ourselves to purely grammatical rules.
Actually I asked this question to know whether using pronoun ambiguity is a safe tool for eliminating some choices in the case of this question; that turned out to be: not! (as you have explained in the bold part of your answer).
I know from MGMAT that generally slight pronoun ambiguity might be tolerated, and even some of the published questions in OG have some slight pronoun ambiguity in their correct answer choices.
However, for me it was interesting that the right choice in this questions ALSO has the least problematic usage of the pronoun 'they' compared to answer choices E and D. So I was just curious to know whether this has happened intentionally or simply accidentally.

In contrast to S-V agreement, for example, pronoun ambiguity in some cases, like the one in this question, seems not to be a pretty suitable reason used for eliminating a choice.

Dear apolo,
My friend, I will say SVA is one of the few areas of grammar that is almost mathematical in its sharp right/wrong distinction.
The company is . . . correct
The company are . . . incorrect
With pronouns, mistake of number are similarly black/white:
The store opened in June, and by July it was successful. = correct
The store opened in June, and by July they were successful. = incorrect
For number mistakes in pronoun, we can be just as certain in rejecting answers as we are with SVA mistakes.

The multiple pronoun thing, the same pronoun for two different things, is also a big no-no:
When anthropologist first encountered, they were surprised by their mode of dress.
Who was surprised by who? This is also a wrong-100%-of-the-time kind of error. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-pronoun-traps/

As for antecedent, which noun is the antecedent, then we get into shades of gray. This involves issues of rhetoric and style, not just pure mathematical word order. Parallelism and logical focus of the sentence can sway issues of pronoun-antecedent pairings.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Manager
Joined: 25 Jan 2015
Posts: 131
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 260

While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Mar 2015, 02:36
mikemcgarry wrote:
apolo wrote:
Thanks Mike.
My question did not mean that we should only restrict ourselves to purely grammatical rules.
Actually I asked this question to know whether using pronoun ambiguity is a safe tool for eliminating some choices in the case of this question; that turned out to be: not! (as you have explained in the bold part of your answer).
I know from MGMAT that generally slight pronoun ambiguity might be tolerated, and even some of the published questions in OG have some slight pronoun ambiguity in their correct answer choices.
However, for me it was interesting that the right choice in this questions ALSO has the least problematic usage of the pronoun 'they' compared to answer choices E and D. So I was just curious to know whether this has happened intentionally or simply accidentally.

In contrast to S-V agreement, for example, pronoun ambiguity in some cases, like the one in this question, seems not to be a pretty suitable reason used for eliminating a choice.

Dear apolo,
My friend, I will say SVA is one of the few areas of grammar that is almost mathematical in its sharp right/wrong distinction.
The company is . . . correct
The company are . . . incorrect
With pronouns, mistake of number are similarly black/white:
The store opened in June, and by July it was successful. = correct
The store opened in June, and by July they were successful. = incorrect
For number mistakes in pronoun, we can be just as certain in rejecting answers as we are with SVA mistakes.

The multiple pronoun thing, the same pronoun for two different things, is also a big no-no:
When anthropologist first encountered, they were surprised by their mode of dress.
Who was surprised by who? This is also a wrong-100%-of-the-time kind of error. See:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-pronoun-traps/

As for antecedent, which noun is the antecedent, then we get into shades of gray. This involves issues of rhetoric and style, not just pure mathematical word order. Parallelism and logical focus of the sentence can sway issues of pronoun-antecedent pairings.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

Thanks Mike.
For the second case that you have mentioned, let me show an example from Verbal review, SC problem #92:

Schistosomiasis, a disease caused by a parasitic worm, is prevalent in hot, humid climates, and it has become more widespread as irrigation projects have enlarged the habitat of the freshwater snails that are the parasite’s hosts for part of its life cycle.

(the original sentence is correct)

According to Manhattan SC book, every 'it and its' and every 'they, them, their' must refer to the same antecedent in a sentence.

However, in this sentence 'it' refers to the disease and 'its' refers to 'parasite'.
Of course they explained this contradiction by saying that we have two clauses, and that rules is about clauses not sentences: kind of weird, because in their book they have not clearly mentioned this. Also here (after 'and') indeed we have a complex sentence made of a main clause and a subordinate clause ...
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3712
Followers: 1298

Kudos [?]: 5859 [1] , given: 66

Re: While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Mar 2015, 10:12
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
apolo wrote:
Thanks Mike.
For the second case that you have mentioned, let me show an example from Verbal review, SC problem #92:

Schistosomiasis, a disease caused by a parasitic worm, is prevalent in hot, humid climates, and it has become more widespread as irrigation projects have enlarged the habitat of the freshwater snails that are the parasite’s hosts for part of its life cycle.

(the original sentence is correct)

According to Manhattan SC book, every 'it and its' and every 'they, them, their' must refer to the same antecedent in a sentence.

However, in this sentence 'it' refers to the disease and 'its' refers to 'parasite'.
Of course they explained this contradiction by saying that we have two clauses, and that rules is about clauses not sentences: kind of weird, because in their book they have not clearly mentioned this. Also here (after 'and') indeed we have a complex sentence made of a main clause and a subordinate clause ...

Dear apolo
My friend, I think you misunderstand the sense of that rule. Yes, it's absolutely true, as MGMAT says, that it's a big no-no to have the same pronoun referring to two different things in the same part of the sentence.
. . . they would not sell them the rights . . .
. . . it prevented it from . . .
Think of it this way: every clause within sentence is a mini-sentence in itself. Similarly, participial & infinitive & gerund phrases revolve around a verb-form, exactly as a clause revolves around a verb. Each one is a kind of mini-sentence within the whole. Using the same pronoun inside the same mini-sentence for two different things is a huge no-no. By contrast, if in one part of the sentence, I have [antecedent #1] . . "its," and then later, in another part, I have [antecedent #2] . . . "it," that's perfectly fine. How close is too close? When are two of the same pronoun far enough away that no ambiguity arises? To some extent, this is a judgment call, but certainly when they only a few words apart in the same phrase or clause, that's a problem.

In that sentence from the OG Verbal Review,
Schistosomiasis, a disease caused by a parasitic worm, is prevalent in hot, humid climates, and it has become . . .
The main sentence structure involves two parallel independent clauses. The first "it" is the subject of the second independent clause, parallel to the subject of the first. This parallelism, as well as the rhetorical focus of the sentence on schistosomiasis, make it unambiguously clear that this "it" should refer to schistosomiasis.

Then, later in the sentence, we have a that-clause, a relative clause that modifies the noun "freshwater snails."
. . . freshwater snails that are the parasite’s hosts for part of its life cycle.
In that region of the sentence, that mini-sentence zone, the only singular noun is "parasite," because the snails are plural. Normally, a noun in the possessive cannot be an antecedent, but it can be if the pronoun is also in the possessive, as it is here. This is a dependent clause. Think about if we made this information a sentence on its own:
Freshwater snails are the parasite’s hosts for part of its life cycle.
That's a perfectly clear sentence. The pronoun usage in that sentence is completely unambiguous. That's precisely why we can turn the sentence back into the clause, stick it in the larger sentence, and the pronoun usage is still clear. The two "it" usages are "far away" from each other, doing very different things in very different parts of the sentence, and each one has its own strong relationship with its own antecedent.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Intern
Joined: 13 Sep 2013
Posts: 7
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 2

Re: While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Apr 2015, 13:01
Very interesting question Himanshu.
When you are dealing with ellipsis, it always helps to begin from the completely expanded version with all the words and then move your way to the abbreviated version by applying ellipsis along the way. I will do the same here:

Let's consider only the pertinent portion of the sentence.

1. The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants.
No issues here with the comparison. Both sides of the comparison are grammatically and logically parallel.

Now what if I replace "the cost of running" with "that". After it is obvious that we are comparing cost of running of the two categories of plants. But when I apply this ellipsis, I need something to connect "that" with "other types of power plants".

2. (Without connection with that)
The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as that other types of power plants. WRONG

2. (with correct connection)
The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as that for other types of power plants.
So this is where the preposition "for" comes from.

Now we continue with our ellipsis. We can indeed even omit "that" from here since this omission will not lead to any ambiguity.

3. The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants.

So this is how I get to the correct sentence containing "for".

Now let's apply the same on the set of sentences:
1. The incidence of the disease among men exceeds the incidence of the disease among women.
1 to 2 - The incidence of the disease among men exceeds the incidence of the disease among women.
2. The incidence of the disease among men exceeds the incidence among women.
2 to 3 - The incidence of the disease among men exceeds the incidence among women.
3. The incidence of the disease among men exceeds that among women.

So the key thing here is that as you replace or omit words, think about what connections you may need to get the correct sentence. The nature of the two sentences is different. In the Official sentence, the main component - cost of running - took direct object without the need of any preposition. So when we replaced this with "that" we needed a connection - i.e. a preposition. However, in the other example, the main component - incidence of the disease - itself needed a preposition to connect to the object and hence when we replaced it with "that" we did not need to get another preposition.

Thus when you cross-check your work in ellipsis, start from the complete sentence and then work your way to simplified version with replacement words and omitted words.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Payal[/quote]

Payal,

I understand the need of a preposition to make a correct elipsis, but I still have a doubt, why we are using FOR, instead of " OF", which is the preposition used on the non-omitted part " the cost OF running". I would say, "the cost of running nuclear plants is the same as (that) OF other types of power plants" ... I am bit confused

Another doubt is the role of AS in this sentence, is part of the idiom " the same AS" ?
Manager
Joined: 27 Nov 2014
Posts: 68
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 21

Re: While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

12 Apr 2015, 02:27
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants, it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes it more expensive for them to generate electricity.

A. While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants, it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes it more expensive for them to generate electricity.
Usage of them+ usage of it is ambiguous
B While the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants, the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants make the electricity they generate more expensive.
Correct
C. Even though it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants, it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes the electricity they generate more expensive.
Usage of that is not required+ usage of it has no referent + must be cost instead of costs
D. It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants, whereas the electricity they generate is more expensive, stemming from the fixed costs of building nuclear plants.
Last sentence modifies the earlier sentence which is not a IC + must be cost instead of costs
E. The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as other types of power plants, but the electricity they generate is made more expensive because of the fixed costs stemming from building nuclear plants
Usage of because of is not right

Hence B
Ans!

Regards
Akshat
Current Student
Joined: 11 Oct 2013
Posts: 124
Concentration: Marketing, General Management
GMAT 1: 600 Q41 V31
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 137

Re: While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 Dec 2015, 10:35
daagh wrote:
There are two distinct splits here, as you may see; one is the comparison of the costs to run a nuclear plant with just the other types of plants and not their running costs. The second split is the ambiguity of the pronouns, precisely the –third - it in the original. Of course the other two it pronouns may be argued as passable as place holders.

A. While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants, it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes it more expensive for them to generate electricity. ----- 1.faulty comparison; cost of running compared with other types of power plants 2. The third pronoun it is dangling without an antecedent. Makes what more expensive? Makes electricity more expensive to generate electricity 3. Costs that makes … A SV mismatch

B While the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants, the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants make the electricity they generate more expensive.
The comparison, the pronoun problem and the SV mismatch nicely fixed. Correct choice.

C. Even though it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants, it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes the electricity they generate more expensive. -----Though the comparison problems are fixed, costs and that makes is S-V mismatch.

D. It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants, whereas the electricity they generate is more expensive, stemming from the fixed costs of building nuclear plants.
Pronoun they is rather ambiguous; they may refer to either the nuclear or other types.

E. The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as other types of power plants, but the electricity they generate is made more expensive because of the fixed costs stemming from building nuclear plants. -------- Faulty comparison

Also, in option D, 'whereas' does not make any sense. Its a contrast which should be on the lines of however, although, even though etc.

+Kudos if this helped!
_________________

Its not over..

Intern
Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Posts: 17
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 6

While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Feb 2016, 20:24
Hi can some one please explain the ellipsis of the same...as? I just got more confused after reading those posts...
(A) The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants.
(B) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as it costs to run other types of power plants.
Also, why is the sentence "the incidence of the disease among men exceeds among women" ambiguious? Some one explained it in the post but I still dont get it. Thanks~
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3712
Followers: 1298

Kudos [?]: 5859 [0], given: 66

Re: While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 Feb 2016, 11:13
phemiaYu wrote:
Hi can some one please explain the ellipsis of the same...as? I just got more confused after reading those posts...
(A) The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants.
(B) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as it costs to run other types of power plants.
Also, why is the sentence "the incidence of the disease among men exceeds among women" ambiguious? Some one explained it in the post but I still dont get it. Thanks~

Dear phemiaYu,
I'm happy to respond. I think one of thing that is potentially confusing is the fact that common words have been dropped in the second branch of the parallelism. See this blog article:
Dropping Common Words in Parallel

(1a) The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants. = wordy but OK
(1b) The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as that of running other types of power plants. = not much better
Because of the phrasing, it's not immediately obvious how to omit repeated words to shorten this more without introducing ambiguity or awkwardness. This is not a structure that lends itself to elegant revisions.

(2a) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as it costs to run other types of power plants. = correct but too wordy
(2b) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as to run other types of power plants. = better, with the common words "to run" dropped in the second branch.
(2c) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants. = even more elegant: this is what the GMAT loves!

Now, look at the structure in the OA:
(3a) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants ..." = that's the full version. That's grammatically correct but a rhetorical disaster! It reeks of redundancy! We need to drop some of the repeated words.
(3b) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as that of running other types of power plants ..." = only slightly better
(3b) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants ..." = an elegant gem! Again, this is what the GMAT loves, and this is the version in the OA.

The very hard thing about this is that when we look at parallelism of a complex structure, it is up to us, the readers, to infer which repeated elements from the first branch have been omitted in the second branch. We get (2c) or (3c) printed on the page and we have to understand that everything in (2a) or (3a) is implicit in that.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Intern
Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Posts: 17
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 6

Re: While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Feb 2016, 01:05
mikemcgarry wrote:
phemiaYu wrote:
Hi can some one please explain the ellipsis of the same...as? I just got more confused after reading those posts...
(A) The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants.
(B) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as it costs to run other types of power plants.
Also, why is the sentence "the incidence of the disease among men exceeds among women" ambiguious? Some one explained it in the post but I still dont get it. Thanks~

Dear phemiaYu,
I'm happy to respond. I think one of thing that is potentially confusing is the fact that common words have been dropped in the second branch of the parallelism. See this blog article:
Dropping Common Words in Parallel

(1a) The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants. = wordy but OK
(1b) The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as that of running other types of power plants. = not much better
Because of the phrasing, it's not immediately obvious how to omit repeated words to shorten this more without introducing ambiguity or awkwardness. This is not a structure that lends itself to elegant revisions.

(2a) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as it costs to run other types of power plants. = correct but too wordy
(2b) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as to run other types of power plants. = better, with the common words "to run" dropped in the second branch.
(2c) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants. = even more elegant: this is what the GMAT loves!

Now, look at the structure in the OA:
(3a) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants ..." = that's the full version. That's grammatically correct but a rhetorical disaster! It reeks of redundancy! We need to drop some of the repeated words.
(3b) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as that of running other types of power plants ..." = only slightly better
(3b) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants ..." = an elegant gem! Again, this is what the GMAT loves, and this is the version in the OA.

The very hard thing about this is that when we look at parallelism of a complex structure, it is up to us, the readers, to infer which repeated elements from the first branch have been omitted in the second branch. We get (2c) or (3c) printed on the page and we have to understand that everything in (2a) or (3a) is implicit in that.

Does all this make sense?
Mike

That's very kind of you. Thank you. But I still have this question.
[1] The incidence of this disease among men exceeds that among women.
[2] The incidence of this disease among men exceeds among women.
I can tell that the first version is correct, but someone said in the posts that the second one is ambiguous. What do you think about it? Is there any grammatic problem in the second version?
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3712
Followers: 1298

Kudos [?]: 5859 [0], given: 66

Re: While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Feb 2016, 11:10
phemiaYu wrote:
That's very kind of you. Thank you. But I still have this question.
[1] The incidence of this disease among men exceeds that among women.
[2] The incidence of this disease among men exceeds among women.
I can tell that the first version is correct, but someone said in the posts that the second one is ambiguous. What do you think about it? Is there any grammatic problem in the second version?

Dear phemiaYu,
I'm happy to respond.

There is a very subtle rhetorical issue here. We can drop common words in the second branch of the parallelism, but if we drop too much, the sentence becomes awkward.

Sentence [1] is perfectly fine, perfectly correct: it has a rigorously clear meaning. Sentence [2] is awkward: it no longer effectively conveys the same information that Sentence [1] conveys, and it is unclear exactly what it is trying to say. It is not clear whether it is grammar problem or a logic problem or a rhetoric problem, but it is a disaster.

I guess I would say that, in Sentence [2], the speaker is clearly trying to make some comparison, but exactly what comparison the speaker intends in unclear. Sentence [2] is awkward and illogical and unclear enough that it is not the correct way to phrase any conceivable comparison.

Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Manager
Joined: 20 Apr 2013
Posts: 144
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 17

Re: While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Feb 2016, 21:58
mikemcgarry wrote:
Now, look at the structure in the OA:
(3a) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants ..." = that's the full version. That's grammatically correct but a rhetorical disaster! It reeks of redundancy! We need to drop some of the repeated words.
(3b) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as that of running other types of power plants ..." = only slightly better
(3b) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants ..." = an elegant gem! Again, this is what the GMAT loves, and this is the version in the OA.

The very hard thing about this is that when we look at parallelism of a complex structure, it is up to us, the readers, to infer which repeated elements from the first branch have been omitted in the second branch. We get (2c) or (3c) printed on the page and we have to understand that everything in (2a) or (3a) is implicit in that.

Slightly confusing. In the answer we have "for" other types of power plants, but there is no "for" on the right hand side at all (in your 3a and 3b versions). So, how is "of' changing to "for".
Manager
Joined: 23 Jun 2012
Posts: 107
GPA: 3.84
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 151

Re: While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Feb 2016, 22:28
sukanyar wrote:
mikemcgarry wrote:
Now, look at the structure in the OA:
(3a) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants ..." = that's the full version. That's grammatically correct but a rhetorical disaster! It reeks of redundancy! We need to drop some of the repeated words.
(3b) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as that of running other types of power plants ..." = only slightly better
(3b) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants ..." = an elegant gem! Again, this is what the GMAT loves, and this is the version in the OA.

The very hard thing about this is that when we look at parallelism of a complex structure, it is up to us, the readers, to infer which repeated elements from the first branch have been omitted in the second branch. We get (2c) or (3c) printed on the page and we have to understand that everything in (2a) or (3a) is implicit in that.

Slightly confusing. In the answer we have "for" other types of power plants, but there is no "for" on the right hand side at all (in your 3a and 3b versions). So, how is "of' changing to "for".

you have put a very good question, now just ask ur self what is right
the cost of X is same as it is FOR others (we arn't comparing cost of X to cost of others, we are trying to say that cost of running something is same as it is for other plants)
the cost of X is same as it is OF others--wrong
_________________

Push yourself again and again. Don't give an inch until the final buzzer sounds. -Larry Bird
Success isn't something that just happens - success is learned, success is practiced and then it is shared. -Sparky Anderson
-S

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 3712
Followers: 1298

Kudos [?]: 5859 [1] , given: 66

Re: While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Feb 2016, 10:25
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
sukanyar wrote:
Slightly confusing. In the answer we have "for" other types of power plants, but there is no "for" on the right hand side at all (in your 3a and 3b versions). So, how is "of' changing to "for".

sananoor wrote:
you have put a very good question, now just ask ur self what is right
the cost of X is same as it is FOR others (we arn't comparing cost of X to cost of others, we are trying to say that cost of running something is same as it is for other plants)
the cost of X is same as it is OF others--wrong

Dear sukanyar,
I'm happy to respond. On behalf of the English Language, I apologize. Grammar is not mathematics. Grammar is not mathematics. There are patterns, to be sure, but none of the patterns of grammar are as rigorously clean and logical as the patterns of mathematics. If you approach GMAT grammar looking for the precise rules to follow, the English language will endlessly frustrate you.

There is absolutely no way to get to GMAT SC mastery by assembling some ideal set of grammar rules. You have to read. You have to develop an ear for the living language in all its idiosyncrasy. See this blog article:
How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Manager
Joined: 20 Apr 2013
Posts: 144
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 17

Re: While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Feb 2016, 09:45
ok Mike. Actually I am now quite comfortable with Verbal, but every now and then, questions like these continue to trip me very badly:(.
Re: While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other   [#permalink] 24 Feb 2016, 09:45

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   6   7    Next  [ 125 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 During the 1890s, while at the same time a student, Willa Cather 1 27 Oct 2016, 12:29
2 Humans are better adapted for running than are other primates; a narro 4 23 Sep 2016, 13:34
1 While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other 3 14 Feb 2014, 10:55
The new implementation for the plant will cost about 30 6 15 Apr 2007, 00:14
SC: Nuclear Power Plants 23 28 Jan 2007, 21:25
Display posts from previous: Sort by