This comparison is very clearly wrong: “total fat… is less than livestock.” You could, I suppose, also argue that the “they” isn’t 100% clear – but the illogical comparison is the most straightforward issue. (D) is out, too.


There’s a lot of clunkiness here, but the biggest issue is the word “they”: the only possible referents are “wild animals”, “livestock”, or “studies.” And none of those are likely to “think [that fat] is good for cardiac health.” (E) is gone, and (B) is the best answer.[/quote]



Hello GMATNinja.

I am clear with the POE as explained but I am skeptical about the usage of with here.To me it seemed liked an adverbial modifer in option D and E.

Can you please help me understand the same.

mikemcgarry GMATNinja daagh

This is a sentence I found in an article in nytimes . I have few doubts please help me out

"The banks also suggested that Uber could list its shares for trading on the stock market earlier than its original plans for late 2019 "

In this sentence, I understand that comparison is between times "earlier and late 2019" .but what I don't understand is the comparison structure and the respective elements. I mean in the above example here we are comparing action " could list its shares" to " original plans for late 2019".
Now as per my ubder

Posted from my mobile device

A is out. ‘they’ has to refer to a plural noun and the only ones here are ‘studies’ and ‘wild animals’, neither of which make sense in context.

B seems to be clear.

C is badly constructed. ‘that’ can only really refer to ‘total fat’ but then the sentence becomes odd and repetitive.

D clearly has a comparison issue, ‘total fat’ is compared to ‘livestock’

E has the same problem as A, except for the pronoun ‘their.

So B is far and away the most suitable option.

Hello Everyone!

This is a great example of a GMAT question that includes a comparison! Let's start off by looking at the original question and highlighting any major differences between the options in orange:

According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat from wild animals and meat from domesticated animals, wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat they think is good for cardiac health.

(A) wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat they think is
(B) wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat thought to be
(C) wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain and have more fat of a kind thought to be
(D) total fat of wild animals is less than livestock fed on grain and they have more fat of a kind thought to be
(E) total fat is less in wild animals than that of livestock fed on grain and more of their fat is of a kind they think is

After looking over the options quickly, a few key differences pop out:

1. starting off the comparison with "wild animals" vs. "total fat" (meaning/clarity)
2. than do livestock / than livestock / than that of livestock (parallelism)
3. more of a kind of fat / more fat of a kind (meaning/clarity)
4. pronouns toward the end = make sure they're clear

Since we know we're dealing with a comparison question, let's start by checking that the comparisons are parallel. This is the basic format they should follow:

X less than Y

Let's save the ones that are parallel for later, and rule out the ones that aren't:

(A) wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat they think is --> PARALLEL

(B) wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat thought to be --> PARALLEL

(C) wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain and have more fat of a kind thought to be --> NOT PARALLEL (Comparing wild animals to "that of" livestock; what is "that of" referring to? We don't know, but we do know it's not parallel.)

(D) total fat of wild animals is less than livestock fed on grain and they have more fat of a kind thought to be --> NOT PARALLEL (Compares "total fat" to "livestock," which are not parallel things.)

(E) total fat is less in wild animals than that of livestock fed on grain and more of their fat is of a kind they think is --> NOT PARALLEL (Compares wild animals to "that of" livestock, which isn't parallel.)

We can eliminate options C, D, & E because the comparisons made were not parallel.

Now that we have this narrowed down to 2 options, let's take a closer look at each to find any potential problems:

(A) wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat they think is

This is INCORRECT because it has a vague pronoun! Who/what is "they" referring to? It's not clear at all! This is a great example of the "Mysterious they." The sentence never refers to WHO conducted the studies mentioned in the beginning - in fact, there are no people in this sentence at all! So let's toss this option out.

(B) wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat thought to be

This is CORRECT! The comparison is parallel, and there are no problems with vague or misleading pronouns!


There you have it - option B is the correct choice!


Don't study for the GMAT. Train for it.
_________________

So, do you basically mean to say that if something is ambiguous, it is wrong but if it so ambiguous that it is absurd, it is not wrong? :P

A. wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat they think is

what i want to know is "wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain" - is this part correct grammatically ?

What is the rule for "do" ? where should it be used ?

Hi nlx23, do in option A correctly substitutes for have.

Note that do, does and did are all forms of the verb to do. These forms of to do verbs are very flexible; they can stand for the main verb in the sentence.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses to do verbs, their application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.
_________________

can anyone explain this?

(B) wild animals have less total fat than livestock (have) fed on grain and more of a kind of fat thought to be

(C) wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain and have more fat of a kind thought to be


more of a kind of fat VS more fat of a kind
Do both carry different meaning?

I read this as,
more of a kind of fat = more of a type of fat thought to be good for cardiac health.
[ more fat of a kind = more fat of a type thought to be good for cardiac health.

As described in our rambling guide to the word “that”, “that” is a singular pronoun in this type of situation. In (C), I guess it has to refer to “total fat,” but that doesn’t really make sense: “wild animals have less total fat than the total fat of livestock fed on grain…”
the most straightforward issue.

Please help me explain this question...
why the comparison in C is wrong? wild animals have less total fat than the total fat of livestock. this compares the total fat of both animals. on Contrary, B compares total fat with the number of livestock.
comparison in B looks illogical whereas in C looks correct.

Dear GMATNinja,

Thanks for detailed explanation.

"Dear Team,
I have a doubt in option B. Comparison is done between ""wild animals have less total fat"" and ""livestock"" which is illogical. It should be ""livestock's "". Kindly suggest

According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat from wild animals and meat from domesticated animals, wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat thought to be good for cardiac health.

Thanks in advance

bb generis

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

I struck off B as it had a passive voice construction. Where am i going wrong in thinking that "passive construction is almost always wrong on GMAT". I reasoned that since we do not know here who does the thinking in "kind of thought to be", hence (B) can't be the right answer choice.

Passive voice is not wrong. In writing, active voice is preferred over passive voice but passive voice has its uses (when the impact of the action is more important than the doer of the action) e.g.
"The tattoo was removed."
instead of "The doctor removed the tattoo."

You don't care who removed the tattoo. The important thing is that it was removed.

You cannot ignore an option just because it uses passive voice.
_________________

VeritasKarishma Thanks a lot. You demystified my wrong perception of passive construction. Kudos!!

Dear egmat, I found your views very useful and also the link on ellipsis is very informative. Thanks for sharing them. In order to enhance my understanding on ellipsis, I have a query regarding option D.
Option D: total fat of wild animals is less than (total fat of) livestock fed on grain and they have more fat of a kind thought to be.

Also, "they" can refer to "wild animals" which is correct.
Kindly suggest.

Thanks in advance
GMATNinja

Hi,

I am having trouble in identifying what are being compared especially in D.
D states that "total fat of wild animals is less than livestock fed of grain"---> Doesnt this mean that total fat of wild animals is less than total fat of livestock.

Hello krishnabalu!

In option D, it is comparing fat to animals, which isn't parallel. An easy way to check for this is to eliminate any prepositional phrases you can find. Prepositional phrases are there to add extra information - but they can also confuse readers! Here is what it looks like if we cross them out:

total fat of wild animals is less than livestock fed of grain

If we eliminate the extra information, we can clearly see that this option is trying to compare total fat to livestock, which is NOT parallel! It should compare fat to fat, or animal to animal.

If we look at the correct option, we see a parallel comparison:

(B) wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain

This option is comparing animals to animals, which is parallel. The basis for comparison is their total fat, which is clearly indicated here.

I hope this helps!
_________________

I think your interpretation is spot on here. Nice job!



The issue stems from the use of the verb "have". If we wanted to compare the total fat of one animal to the total fat of another animal, we would say something like, "the total fat of wild animals IS less than the total fat of livestock fed on grain."

Consider the following examples:

• "I have less wine than you (have)." - The second "have" is implied. This sentence clearly communicates that the amount of wine that I have is less than the amount of wine that you have. This is analogous to choice (B): "wild animals have less total fat than livestock (have)."
• "I have less wine than your wine (has?)." - This one doesn't make sense. Your wine doesn't HAVE some amount of wine. YOU have some amount of wine. This is analogous to choice (C): "wild animals have less total fat than the total fat of livestock fed on grain".

The total fat of livestock fed on grain does not have some amount of total fat. The livestock has some amount of total fat. So we want to say that "wild animals HAVE less total fat than livestock (have)." And that's why (B) makes more sense than (C).

I hope this helps!
_________________

thank you gmat ninja for the confirmation

Posted from my mobile device

the other reason why i wrote this was because, i noticed that horizontal scanning is useful, when everyone else are debating / explaining on the ellipsis of the comparison.

when performing horizontal scan, i noticed that
this answer choice c has a different way of wording "fats" , and thus, it led me to suspect there might be differences in meaning between c and the original answer choice .

i learn that Gmat is looking for the best fit of all answer choices.

btw, thanks for your clear and crisp explanation on this question in your earlier post.

775.According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat from wild animals and meat from domesticated animals, wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat they think is good for cardiac health.


(A) wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat they think is

They is ambiguous. We are not sure to whom its referring. Is it referring to studies. But studies can’t think. So WRONG

(B) wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat thought to be

CORRECT. Not as I got some clue. But I did not find any flaw in this answer. So let’s KEEP.

(C) wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain and have more fat of a kind thought to be

Than that of. That is referring to total fat. Ok. READ THIS SENTENCE AGAIN.

According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat from wild animals and meat from domesticated animals, wild animals have less total fat than total fat of livestock fed on grain and have more fat of a kind thought to be

have less total fat than total fat of livestock fed : Make no sense correct. SO WRONG


(D) total fat of wild animals is less than livestock fed on grain and they have more fat of a kind thought to be

According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat from wild animals and meat from domesticated animals,

Comparing the nutritional value of meat from X and meat from Y, Now there is comparison is happening so this clause should start with either X or Y.

Again They is ambiguous So WRONG

(E) total fat is less in wild animals than that of livestock fed on grain and more of their fat is of a kind they think is

Same issue of THAT and THEY So WRONG