According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr

What is wild animal modifiying here?since it's after comma@banuel

Posted from my mobile device

How do I exactly know what is being compared, fat of wild animals or wild animals themseleves? I always get confused with this! Someone please help

In option B .

Why is "Wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain" non ambiguos:
Is it not leading to two meanings ?

1. Wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain have less total fat ( Order )
or
2. Wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain have ( Comparison)

Great discussions in this post ... maybe a good item to cover next SC Video would be "Ellipsis" .... I picked A as the right answer because I thought "they" is referring to "studies". As per the rulebook of Pronoun, "they" can refer to both "living" and "non-living" things, such as - we use "they" to refer to companies, why "they" cannot refer to studies? Is this an exception to the rule?

Also, for (C), Why can't we compare the "total fat" content b/w the animals, is not what (C) is doing? I still do not understand why it produces an illogical meaning ...

GMATNinja AndrewN Please help ... this question is killing me ...

Hello Ridhimajain96,

I will be glad to help you out with this one.

Following is the excerpt from the passage that presents the comparison in Choice B:

...wild animals have less total fat than livestock...

In the above structure, wild animals have been correctly compared to livestock.

The thing is the verb have or the helping verb do in place of have is understood after than because such omission does not lead to any ambiguity in comparison.

In total, there are three nouns in the above-mentioned structure - wild animals, livestock, and total fat. Needless to say that only the first two noun entities can be logically compared in the context of this sentence. Wild animals cannot be logically compared to total fat.

Such omissions are NOT allowed when doing so leads to ambiguous comparison.

You may go through our elaborate article named HOW FAR ELLIPSIS IS PERMISSIBLE IN COMPARISON to understand in which sentences we must use the helping verb in the second part of the comparison and in which sentence we not in the following link:

https://gmatclub.com/forum/how-far-ellipsis-is-permissible-in-comparison-148973.html


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Hello JAIN09,

I apologize for getting back to this post so late.

A. wild animals have less total fat than do livestock
B. wild animals have less total fat than livestock


Both these structures correctly present the intended comparison. The only two logical entities that can be compared in these structures are wild animals and livestock.


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

There’s no pronoun here, so that’s cool. And I think the meaning works: “wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain” is fine. The second part seems fine, too: “wild animals have… more of a kind of fat thought to be good for cardiac health.”

I don’t see any huge issues, so let’s keep (B).


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…”

That’s kind of a mess. Wild animals have less fat than livestock, but it wouldn’t make sense to say that “wild animals have less total fat.. than the total fat…” That comparison is thoroughly wrong. (C) is out.

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 ?

There’s no pronoun here, so that’s cool. And I think the meaning works: “wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain” is fine. The second part seems fine, too: “wild animals have… more of a kind of fat thought to be good for cardiac health.”

I don’t see any huge issues, so let’s keep (B).

A few of my best students have gotten their asses thoroughly kicked by this one, so please don’t feel badly if you struggled with it. (And most of the early responses look great!) Success on this question is mostly about your ability to be incredibly literal with the meaning, particularly as it relates to the pronouns in the sentence. (For more on pronouns, check out our good old YouTube webinar on the topic.)


“They” has to refer back to a plural noun, but our only options are “studies” (which makes no sense, because studies can’t think) or “wild animals” (which also makes no sense, unless you think wild animals moonlight as nutritionists. (A) is out.


There’s no pronoun here, so that’s cool. And I think the meaning works: “wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain” is fine. The second part seems fine, too: “wild animals have… more of a kind of fat thought to be good for cardiac health.”

I don’t see any huge issues, so let’s keep (B).


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…”

That’s kind of a mess. Wild animals have less fat than livestock, but it wouldn’t make sense to say that “wild animals have less total fat.. than the total fat…” That comparison is thoroughly wrong. (C) is out.


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.

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

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.