A booming population center, the Asian continent is home to over 3.5bi

equal / equivalent usage -

2 + 2 = 4 ( equal ). Equal is reserved keyword - highly restricted.

SGD 1.5 is equivalent to USD 1.0. Equivalent is not as restricted as equal.

Both keywords are used against the exact number. When you use approx numbers you CANT use these keywords.

Hence answer is E "as many as" defines "over 3.5billion people" ----> which is not a exact number.

I think it can't be D because if you remove the words "as many as" you can see that "3.6 billion people reside in all the other areas of the world combined" makes sense but "3.6 billion people the residents of all the other areas of the world combined" doesn't make sense.

Good question.


Have a clear understanding what is compared to what and realise that this comparison must be logical.
E is correct because it clearly compares people to people " as many [people] as " and uses correct idiom reside in.

A, B, C - are wrong becasue the number of "3.5 billion people" can not be "equivalent to the residents"

D - remember "to drive your VAN" rule, so verb is preffered over noun. D is out.

daagh:
Could you please discuss, why the the comparison in D (of the Original post) is incorrect.
it sounds like comparing "3.5 billion people" to "residents" and that is logical.

That I feel is the beauty of this out and out meaning- based question, the meaning of which is masquerading under so many structures. The apparent meaning of the sentence is that some 3.5 billion people reside in Asia, in comparison to just as many as those reside outside. Hence, the comparison is between the action of the Asians and the action of the rest. In such instances
It is appropriate to use a comparative idiom -as many as -.

The problem of the issue is that, the action of the second arm is mostly elliptical and understood rather than explicitly stated. For example, when we say that Team A has played as many matches as Team B, we actually mean that Team A has played as many matches as Team B (has played). This is indeed a subtle comparison of actions masquerading as comparison of nouns. That is the reason D is dumped.

Final qualifier: All these are my opinions.

How is E correct? Can there be a verb after "as many as"?

Dear radi,
I am happy to respond. The short answer is: yes! A verb can come after "as many as," precisely because words have been omitted in the parallel structure.

Here's version (E) with all the extra words:
A booming population center, the Asian continent is home to over 3.5 billion people, about as many as the people who reside in all the other areas of the world combined.
As many people as people --- that's a logical correct comparison, but phrasing it this way is wordy and awkward. In parallelism, we can drop repeated or implied words in the second branch. That gives us the true version of (E), the OA:
A booming population center, the Asian continent is home to over 3.5 billion people, about as many as reside in all the other areas of the world combined.
Recognizing what has been dropped legitimately from the second branch of parallelism is one of the hardest things to appreciate about parallelism. See this blog:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/dropping-c ... -the-gmat/

Does all this make sense?
Mike

In A and B, equivalent does not convey the intended meaning. EQUIVALENT means "of equal value". We cannot say that 3.5 billion people are "of equal value" to another group of people. Eliminate A and B.

In C, we cannot say that 3.5 BILLION PEOPLE are equal to THOSE who reside in all the other areas of the world. The PEOPLE themselves are not equal; the NUMBER of people is equal. Eliminate C.

In D, as is used to compare actions, but it is not clear what action is being performed by the residents of all the other areas of the world. Eliminate D.

HTH

A booming population center, the Asian continent is home to over 3.5 billion people, about equivalent to the residents of all the other areas of the world combined.
(a) equivalent to the residents of
(b) the equivalent of those residing in
(c) equal to those who reside in
(d) as many as the residents of
(e) as many as reside in


I want to add something coming to options D and E.
people reside in means they live in, occupy or inhabit
residents of-means that "A person who lives somewhere permanently or on a long-term basis"( as per Oxford dic)

sample sentences
Citizens or permanent residents of other countries must have a valid passport and/or a valid visitor's visa.
The majority of the permanent residents are retired ‘incomers’ devoted to growing their own vegetables and etching.
Only four of the 10 houses on the street are now owned by long-term residents.

And this sentence compares the population(people who currently stay in) of Asian continent and that of other areas of the world combined.
So E is preferred.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

not understand why d is wrong
pls, explain more

Dear thangvietnam,
I'm happy to respond. You and many others on this thread have asked about this.

This is not the highest quality SC question. Veritas usually writes high quality questions, but this one is shakier.

You see, on a true GMAT SC question, there is one right answer, and each of the four incorrect answers are wrong for some unambiguously obvious reason. Even the tempting wrong answers on the GMAT are clearly wrong.

On this problem, that is not the case. In this question, both (D) and (E) are grammatically correct. (E) is shorter, more elegant, so it is better answer, but I entirely agree that (D) is not "wrong enough" --- in this way, this SC question falls short of the high standards of the GMAT. Also, the "equal/equivalent" thing does not strike me as particularly GMAT like.

Now, here's the really important thing for you to appreciate. Focusing on the aspects of any question that are not GMAT like will in no way prepare you for the GMAT. This question is one that has fallen short of the GMAT standards, because as an incorrect answer, (D) is not "wrong enough," not as discernibly wrong as an incorrect choice would be on the GMAT. This is the non-GMAT-like part of this question. Focusing on this will not help you at all.

The OA of this question is an incredibly elegant and well-written sentence: it's very much work understanding that. It is certainly worthwhile understanding the parallelism necessary for a well-constructed comparison. Don't be troubled by the aspects of a flawed question that are not GMAT-like.

Do not naively assume that every company that puts something out and calls it a "practice GMAT SC question" has automatically ensured that the quality of the question is up to the GMAT's lofty standards. It is VERY VERY hard to write questions that are as rigorous as those of the GMAT itself, and many companies regularly fall short. Even a very good company, such as Veritas, doesn't hit the mark every time. It's important to appreciate how hard it is to write a question that conforms to these standards, and to be correspondingly suspicious of the quality of each new question you encounter. You can't afford to be naive as a GMAT aspirant, just as you can't afford to be naive in the business world.

Here's a high quality question:
https://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/3284

Does all this make sense?
Mike

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

This is an interesting question that points out the importance of proper comparisons. The logical meaning of this sentence is that the number of people in Asia is equal to the number of people in the rest of the world. The word “equivalent” or even “equal” does not clearly mean numerically equivalent. I could use it in the sentence “Three NBA players would be the equivalent of six college players.” This is the problem with answer choice A. It indicates that the people in Asia are “about equivalent to the residents of all the other areas of the world.” This could mean qualitatively equivalent as in they have the equivalent “brainpower” of the rest of the world. Choices A, B, and C all suffer from this ambiguity.

Choice D and E use the more specific phrase “as many as” this clearly indicates a numerical equivalency and is preferred. Choice E is shorter, more direct and conveys the comparison accurately. 3.5 billion people is “about as many as reside in the rest of the world.” Choice D has a subtle but significant comparison error - the number isn't as many as "the residents" but rather "the number of residents". Choice E performs this comparison correctly and therefore is the correct answer.

‘equivalent’ implies a comparison between more qualities than just number, so A and B are out.

The same can be said for ‘equal’ in C.

D is a wordier version of E.



This means that while both are correct, it is best to go with E.

Dear AjiteshArun AnthonyRitz VeritasPrepBrian MartyTargetTestPrep,

Could you explain the sentence structure after AS MANY AS in the correct answer?

A booming population center, the Asian continent is home to over 3.5 billion people, about AS MANY AS RESIDE IN all the other areas of the world combined.

Q1. What is the subject of RESIDE IN?
Q2. Is "combined" the participle here? Which entity does it modify?

Thank you sir!

Good questions - and just so you can see that this is a very relevant example of how the GMAT finds interesting sentence structures that "hide" subjects, entities to be compared, etc., here's the official problem that this one was modeled after: https://gmatclub.com/forum/according-to-a-study-by-the-carnegie-foundation-for-the-advancement-of-146774.html

For Q1: make sure you recognize that everything after the comma, "about as many as..." is in a phrase that modifies "people." That's what makes the implication of the subject "people" clear - it's a phrase that's directly modifying "people" *and* I'd add that it's a quantifying comparison ("as many as") and it's adjacent to the only numerical information we have (3.5 billion people).

Q2: "combined" here is a participle (verb form used as an adjective) and it's describing "other areas of the world," noting that in this calculation of equality - "as many as" - 3.5 billion isn't the same as each individual area's population, but actually all of those rolled up together into one sum total. That's a pretty standard phrasing to add emphasis to a comparison of one entity that has a disproportionate share of something - adding "combined" to the sum of "all the others" emphasizes that disproportionality. And that's the author's intent here, to draw attention to the fact that this one continent has such a disproportionate share of population compared to others.

“as many as” implies “people”; this implying of a parallel element is a common thing to see in parallel structure. “people” is the subject of the verb “reside.”

“combined” isn’t a verb — just think about meaning: combining is not a past tense action taken by the people or anything else in this sentence. “combined” is a participle that modifies “all of the other areas of the world.”

Also, you asked another tutor whether you couldn't imply "people who" instead. I guess you can, and that's fine, but it doesn't really change any of the analysis. "reside" will still be a verb, and its subject will then be "who," which refers to "people" -- so the subject of "reside" is basically "people" either way. And "combined" will still be a participle, and it will never refer to "people" in any case. Think about the logic; the people aren't "combined" -- the "areas of the world" are.

Some modifiers are essentially sentences with one or more words omitted.
The thief grabbed the cash and ran.
His heart was pounding.
To transform the second sentence into a modifier for the first, we can omit the word in blue.
The result is the following:
The thief grabbed the cash and ran, his heart pounding.
The modifier in green is essentially a sentence with the blue word omitted.



The Asian continent is home to over 3.5 billion people.
As many people reside in the Asian continent as reside in all other areas of the world combined.
To transform the second sentence into a modifier for the first, we can omit the words in blue.
The result is the following:
The Asian continent is home to over 3.5 billion people, as many as reside in all other areas of the world combined.
The modifier in green is essentially a sentence with the blue words omitted.

Note:
On the GMAT, it is VERY common for an SC to end with COMMA + COMPARISON PHRASE.
The comparison phrase will generally include than or as.
The purpose of the comparison phrase will be to EXPLAIN or DEFINE a data point in the preceding clause.

Official examples:
Soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending in the presidential campaign of 1992, a greater proportion than in any previous election.
In 1979 lack of rain reduced India's rice production to about 41 million tons, nearly 25 percent less than the 1978 harvest.
Lake Baikal holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.
Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, fewer than have been killed by bee stings.
Companies in the United States are providing job training and general education for nearly eight million people, as many as are enrolled in the nation's four-year colleges and universities.

In each of the OAs above, the comparison phrase in red serves to explain the preceding data point in blue.
I would not worry too much about the ellipsis for these comparison phrases.
What matters is how they all function.
Each serves to explain a data point in the preceding clause.