NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
It is currently 09 Dec 2023, 10:45
Register
GMAT Classic Tests
GMAT Focus Tests
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr

113 posts Go to First Unread Post
Print view
NEW TOPIC
POST REPLY
Downloads
My Bookmarks
Reviews
SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
   1   2   3   4   5   6   
User avatar
D
MBAB123
Director
Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2020
Posts: 604
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Reviews Badge
Re: According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  26 Jun 2021, 20:32
1
Kudos
adityaganjoo wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
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.)

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

“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.

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

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).

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

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.

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

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.

Quote:
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

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.


GMATNinja Don't you think the literal meaning of (B) is incorrect? (B) translates to: wild animals less fat than they have the livestock fed on grains. Please let me know if I am wrong.

While (C) has the error with 'that', it clearly bypasses the ambiguity (B) has. If both have flaws, why did we prefer (B) over (C)?


adityaganjoo, Option C definitely does not bypass option B. Option C is literally saying "Wild animals have less total fat than total fat...". This comparison does not make sense.

Option B - I don't think it makes sense to interpret this option in the manner that you have done.
Eg - I have more money than Bill gates. Could this somehow mean that I have more money than I have Bill Gates? It makes no sense to say that I have Bill gates. Similarly, it's incorrect to interpret option B as you have done - sure it could somehow be made clearer, but there is no ambiguity here IMO.
avatar
B
datemike
Current Student
Joined: 03 May 2020
Posts: 31
Location: India
Schools: ISB '23 (A)
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
GPA: 3.63
Re: According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  21 Jul 2021, 10:14
The problem with C is that it is incorrectly comparing wild animals with "that/total fat of livestock". To maintain parallelism and logic, wild animals have less fat than livestock (have) is correct.

Infact, this is a key trait to be looked out for in "than" comparisons. Was personally getting many such questions wrong before I understood this logic, hope it helps!

prasannar wrote:
I went for C. I strongly believe C is correct.

it was between B vs C.


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

C. wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain and have more fat of a kind thought to be -> correct proper comparison
User avatar
G
Deadpool3
Manager
Manager
Joined: 20 Aug 2017
Posts: 76
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: Desautels (D)
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  Updated on: 02 Aug 2021, 07:49
2
Kudos
Dear AjiteshArun, GMATNinja , GMATGuruNY, VeritasKarishma, ChiranjeevSingh, BillyZ, generis, egmat, DmitryFarber other experts -please enlighten

I have a conceptual doubt related to option A. I understand that 'they' is wrong in option A. But I want to understand 'do' in "wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain" in this sentence in some expounded manner.
I learned that in an another post that "do" in option A correctly substitutes for have.

I wanted to understand if ellipsis coming into picture here. Does the above sentence means same as below one?

wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain do have

If yes, are the below sentences correct?
1. Rabbit has more fat than do lions
2. I had more money in my prime time than Mukesh do now

Thanking you in advance!

Originally posted by Deadpool3 on 02 Aug 2021, 03:02.
Last edited by Deadpool3 on 02 Aug 2021, 07:49, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
L
AjiteshArun
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 4948
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  02 Aug 2021, 07:36
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
Deadpool3 wrote:
Dear AjiteshArun, GMATNinja , GMATGuruNY, VeritasKarishma, ChiranjeevSingh, BillyZ, generis, egmat, DmitryFarber other experts -please enlighten

I have a conceptual doubt related to option A. I understand that 'they' is wrong in option A. But I want to understand the "wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain". 'do' part in this sentence in some expounded manner.
I learned that in an another post that "do" in option A correctly substitutes for have.

I wanted to understand if ellipsis coming into picture here. Does the above sentence means same as below one?

wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain do have

If yes, are the below sentences are?
1. Rabbit has more fat than do lions
2. I had more money in my prime time than Mukesh do now

Thanking you in advance!

Hi Deadpool3,

That do is a replacement for another verb (have in this case), so it's more likely that (1) is actually (2):

1. ... wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain... or ... wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain do...

2. ... wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain have...

You may also find this post helpful.
_________________
Free Comprehensive CR Course: delv.ac/learn | Free Comprehensive SC Course
Signature Read More
User avatar
B
kdk21
Intern
Intern
Joined: 29 Nov 2020
Posts: 21
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V44
Re: According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  08 Aug 2021, 03:30
(A) wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat they think is
who think? who is they? Studies?---Out

(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
that here refers to fat

Now let's understand the meaning of this sentence with implied verb after than 'have' ---> In this case has because fat is singular
wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed has
i.e.
wild animals have less total fat than fat of livestock fed has
i.e.
wild animals have less total fat than fat has?
Meaning is illogical.

(D) total fat of wild animals is less than livestock fed on grain and they have more fat of a kind thought to be
Why is there an independent clause after 'and' and that too without comma? ---Out

(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 reason as (A) ---Out
avatar
B
pk6969
Manager
Manager
Joined: 25 May 2020
Posts: 136
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: Babson CBS '23 Broad
GPA: 3.2
Re: According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  18 Aug 2021, 01:59
mikemcgarry wrote:
PiyushK wrote:
Refer official question: Confusion ??

Official Guide 10th SC #19:
In addition to having more protein than wheat does, the protein in rice is higher quality than that in wheat, with more of the amino acids essential to the human diet.

A. the protein in rice is higher quality than that in
B. rice has protein of higher quality than that in (correct)
C. the protein in rice is higher in quality than it is in
D. rice protein is higher in quality than it is in
E. rice has a protein higher in quality than (wrong)

Ron's explanation to above question :
"#19 is interesting. there's still LOGICAL parallelism - you have the protein contained in rice, and you have the protein contained in wheat - but the GRAMMATICAL parallelism isn't lock-step: you have "rice has protein" vs. "that in wheat". in other words, while both halves refer to the protein contained in a particular type of food, they do so in slightly different ways. The lesson here is that we shouldn't complain, but, rather, we should learn: if the logical parallelism is absolutely clear, then the gmat will tolerate slight anomalies from the ideal of exact grammatical parallelism."


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

PiyushK wrote:
Lots of confusion is going on following question in comparison to one old official question.
I am in favor of option C, but few experts are in favor of B, whereas one official answer is supporting my point. Could you please help me to understand why C is wrong

if I say : I have less money than that in box << would it be fine ??
I believe both B and C are correct styles of setting comparison because we are comparing total fats of both kinds of animals.

Dear PiyushK,
I am happy to respond to your p.m., my friend. :-) First of all, on the tricky topic of omitting words in parallel, see:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/dropping-c ... -the-gmat/

In the OG question (OG10, SC #19), choice (B) is clearly the right answer ---- "rice has protein of a higher quality than the protein in wheat". The demonstrative pronoun (that, those) refer to a word or phrase explicitly mentioned earlier in the sentence. Since "protein" was mentioned, literally and explicitly, at an earlier point in the sentence, we can use "that" to substitute for it.

Now, the animal fat question. Hmmm. I don't know the source of this question, but I don't think it's a good question. When the word "than" follows a direct object, the comparison can be with either the subject or the object. In (C), if "that" stands for "total fat", then we are comparing object to object, which is correct. I know the MGMAT folks say that (B) is right and (C) is wrong, and they're very smart, but I say that a strong case can be mounted for either (B) or (C), and because of this, this is not a very well written question. This question is not up to the high standards of the GMAT.

In your sentence:
I have less money than that in box
the big problem is the missing article before "box"
I have less money than that in the box.
We could also phrase that as:
I have less money than is in that box.
This last version might be best, but the second version is logical & grammatical correct, if not completely idiomatically natural.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)


I think this makes a lot of sense. Option C can be logically and grammatically correct. An object is being compared to object.
Also, I saw various explanations saying that in C " wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain" is implying that total fat of livestock fed on grain has some fat nonsensically. But I think this interpretation in illogical so no sensible reader would make this interpretation. Like in correct answer B "wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain" no sensible reader would infer that wild animals have less otal fat than they have livestock. I couldn't find concrete reason for eliminating it. Please share your views. IanStewart AndrewN GMATNinja
avatar
L
AndrewN
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3516
Re: According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  18 Aug 2021, 03:38
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
pk6969 wrote:
I think this makes a lot of sense. Option C can be logically and grammatically correct. An object is being compared to object.
Also, I saw various explanations saying that in C " wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain" is implying that total fat of livestock fed on grain has some fat nonsensically. But I think this interpretation in illogical so no sensible reader would make this interpretation. Like in correct answer B "wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain" no sensible reader would infer that wild animals have less otal fat than they have livestock. I couldn't find concrete reason for eliminating it. Please share your views. IanStewart AndrewN GMATNinja

Hello, pk6969. I bet you have practiced enough questions to know how rigidly GMAC™ likes to govern comparisons. My thoughts on this one? Let me put it this way. Answer choice (C) is similar to saying that Bill Gates holds more land than the land of any other American. Why am I not saying—in a direct person-to-person comparison—that Bill Gates holds more land than any other American holds? Of course, the verb can be substituted (does), and the placement of that substituted verb typically occurs before the second element in the comparison on the GMAT™ (i.e. than does any other American), but the sentence can also use ellipsis, and that appears to be the case here. In short, I see nothing wrong with (B), but (C) adopts a skewed comparison, so I would disfavor the latter.

- Andrew
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.
Signature Read More
User avatar
L
IanStewart
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 4131
Re: According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  18 Aug 2021, 05:43
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
pk6969 wrote:
I think this makes a lot of sense. Option C can be logically and grammatically correct. An object is being compared to object.
Also, I saw various explanations saying that in C " wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain" is implying that total fat of livestock fed on grain has some fat nonsensically. But I think this interpretation in illogical so no sensible reader would make this interpretation.


I don't really understand Mike's post that you've quoted, and I'll express more forcefully what Andrew just posted: answer C here is unequivocally wrong. If you take this sentence:

Wild animals have more fat than livestock.

then, as we often do in English, we've omitted a word or two that would make the comparison perfectly precise. The sentence could mean, just speaking syntactically and not semantically:

Wild animals have more fat than they have livestock.

but we rule that interpretation out, because its meaning is nonsensical. So the sentence must mean this:

Wild animals have more fat than livestock has.

There's no reason to include that final "has", because the meaning is clear without it, but that "has" is implied. Now take the construction in answer C, and include the implied "has":

Wild animals have more fat than that of livestock has."

You should now ask: "what on earth is the 'that of' doing there? What is it referring to?" And it can only refer to "fat", so this says: "Wild animals have more fat than the fat of livestock has", and we're now making an absurd comparison between the fat of animals, and the fat belonging to the fat of livestock. This is absolutely wrong, and very many GMAT SC comparison questions construct wrong answers in this way.

The construction is not analogous to the one in the other official question quoted earlier. If you write "rice protein is of higher quality than that in wheat" or something similar, the "that" refers to "protein", so this sentence says "rice protein is of higher quality than protein in wheat", which is perfectly fine -- we're comparing protein in one thing with protein in another thing. It would be completely wrong, however, to say "rice contains more protein than that in wheat", because then the word "that" makes no sense. You'd be comparing the protein in rice to the protein in the protein in wheat.
_________________
http://www.ianstewartgmat.com
Signature Read More
avatar
B
pk6969
Manager
Manager
Joined: 25 May 2020
Posts: 136
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: Babson CBS '23 Broad
GPA: 3.2
Re: According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  18 Aug 2021, 06:30
AndrewN wrote:
pk6969 wrote:
I think this makes a lot of sense. Option C can be logically and grammatically correct. An object is being compared to object.
Also, I saw various explanations saying that in C " wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain" is implying that total fat of livestock fed on grain has some fat nonsensically. But I think this interpretation in illogical so no sensible reader would make this interpretation. Like in correct answer B "wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain" no sensible reader would infer that wild animals have less otal fat than they have livestock. I couldn't find concrete reason for eliminating it. Please share your views. IanStewart AndrewN GMATNinja

Hello, pk6969. I bet you have practiced enough questions to know how rigidly GMAC™ likes to govern comparisons. My thoughts on this one? Let me put it this way. Answer choice (C) is similar to saying that Bill Gates holds more land than the land of any other American. Why am I not saying—in a direct person-to-person comparison—that Bill Gates holds more land than any other American holds? Of course, the verb can be substituted (does), and the placement of that substituted verb typically occurs before the second element in the comparison on the GMAT™ (i.e. than does any other American), but the sentence can also use ellipsis, and that appears to be the case here. In short, I see nothing wrong with (B), but (C) adopts a skewed comparison, so I would disfavor the latter.

- Andrew


I get what you are saying. Its that B is more appropriate and better at communicating than C is (could have used ellipsis construction here :P). I really hate these kind of questions when you can't find absolute errors so you have to stick to which one is better. It creates a room of uncertainty for me. Anyway thanks for clearing it.
avatar
B
pk6969
Manager
Manager
Joined: 25 May 2020
Posts: 136
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: Babson CBS '23 Broad
GPA: 3.2
According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  18 Aug 2021, 06:39
IanStewart wrote:
pk6969 wrote:
I think this makes a lot of sense. Option C can be logically and grammatically correct. An object is being compared to object.
Also, I saw various explanations saying that in C " wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain" is implying that total fat of livestock fed on grain has some fat nonsensically. But I think this interpretation in illogical so no sensible reader would make this interpretation.


I don't really understand Mike's post that you've quoted, and I'll express more forcefully what Andrew just posted: answer C here is unequivocally wrong. If you take this sentence:

Wild animals have more fat than livestock.

then, as we often do in English, we've omitted a word or two that would make the comparison perfectly precise. The sentence could mean, just speaking syntactically and not semantically:

Wild animals have more fat than they have livestock.

but we rule that interpretation out, because its meaning is nonsensical. So the sentence must mean this:

Wild animals have more fat than livestock has.

There's no reason to include that final "has", because the meaning is clear without it, but that "has" is implied. Now take the construction in answer C, and include the implied "has":

Wild animals have more fat than that of livestock has."

You should now ask: "what on earth is the 'that of' doing there? What is it referring to?" And it can only refer to "fat", so this says: "Wild animals have more fat than the fat of livestock has", and we're now making an absurd comparison between the fat of animals, and the fat belonging to the fat of livestock. This is absolutely wrong, and very many GMAT SC comparison questions construct wrong answers in this way.

The construction is not analogous to the one in the other official question quoted earlier. If you write "rice protein is of higher quality than that in wheat" or something similar, the "that" refers to "protein", so this sentence says "rice protein is of higher quality than protein in wheat", which is perfectly fine -- we're comparing protein in one thing with protein in another thing. It would be completely wrong, however, to say "rice contains more protein than that in wheat", because then the word "that" makes no sense. You'd be comparing the protein in rice to the protein in the protein in wheat.


Hi , Thanks for taking out time to clear it. In the question in option C, there is no has. Its simply " wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain". So if we interpret it, we will get "wild animals have less total fat than fat of livestock ". I think its clear enough. Also, I know the interpretation with has is also possible but its obviously illogical so we can eliminate that inference simply as we did in option B. Maybe I am thinking too much, but this is the way I see it. please tell where am I going wrong. Also, I agree that B is superior to C in terms of comparison, but I am not sure whether b contains any major error.
User avatar
P
Crytiocanalyst
VP
VP
Joined: 16 Jun 2021
Posts: 1012
Re: According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  22 Aug 2021, 08:28
kokusanhin wrote:
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
wild animals compared to livestock just doesn't make sense and who is they refering to

(B) wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat thought to be
This doesn't feel wrong in the first glance therefore let us hang on to it

(C) wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain and have more fat of a kind thought to be
wild animalsis vompared to livestock therefore the meaning isn't perfect

(D) total fat of wild animals is less than livestock fed on grain and they have more fat of a kind thought to be
we can't determine to whom they are refering to therefore out

(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
Similar flaws as in C and E

Therefore IMO B
avatar
B
ahmedmoharam
Intern
Intern
Joined: 19 Jul 2019
Posts: 14
Re: According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  06 Sep 2021, 01:47
I chose C for that Ambiguous question, but after going through the replies, here is what I figured out.

All in all Choice B (the correct answer) is still ambiguous, at least for me, but it the best choice among the others.

We all wanted or searched for the answer (wild animals have less total fat than livestock “have”)

Here is the catch, the author had to use ellipses to remove “have”
If have was in the sentence the answer would be
“Than livestock have fed on grains”
Changing the tenses (wild animals have less) “present simple”
And (livestock have fed) “present perfect”
Would destroy the only choice that is the least flawed one.

In choice (C), “that” created a comparison ,which we all fell in love with, between total fat and wild animals, but we didn’t want to believe that these were the two parts of the comparison. And I chose C only because I hated B and felt uncomfortable with B.

Lets hope we don’t encounter a hard question as this one on the real exam.

Correct me if I am wrong guys.

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
L
AjiteshArun
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 4948
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Re: According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  06 Sep 2021, 05:11
Expert Reply
ahmedmoharam wrote:
All in all Choice B (the correct answer) is still ambiguous, at least for me, but it the best choice among the others.

Hi ahmedmoharam,

That's right. Technically, B is ambiguous, but the other options have more serious errors.
_________________
Free Comprehensive CR Course: delv.ac/learn | Free Comprehensive SC Course
Signature Read More
User avatar
P
jabhatta2
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1400
According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  Updated on: 02 Nov 2021, 07:55
Hi avigutman - in option C - Many people are saying - C is wrong because of an incorrect comparison between "wild animals" and "total fat"

I am struggling to understand why is the comparison being forced between "wild animals" and "total fat" ?

Why can't the comparison in option C per my image below be between "total fat" and "total fat of livestock"

I say this specifically in light of another similar structure (2nd image) - contd. below
Attachments

option C.JPG
option C.JPG [ 55.85 KiB | Viewed 1584 times ]


Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 02 Nov 2021, 07:35.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 02 Nov 2021, 07:55, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
P
jabhatta2
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1400
According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  Updated on: 02 Nov 2021, 07:57
OG 372 option E).

Correct (OG 372, option E): Laos has a land area comparable to the land area of Great Britain..

In this accurate sentence -- technically "Laos" and "land area" are not comparable but in this case, the comparison per the solution is between "land area" and "land area" and this answer is accurate.
Attachments

option E.JPG
option E.JPG [ 34.77 KiB | Viewed 1613 times ]


Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 02 Nov 2021, 07:39.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 02 Nov 2021, 07:57, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
D
avigutman
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Posts: 1312
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Re: According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  02 Nov 2021, 09:57
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
^^ How to reconcile the two ?


jabhatta2 the Laos sentence isn't exactly analogous to the total fat sentence. To make it more analogous, consider this sentence:
Laos has less land area than the land area of Great Britain.
How do you feel about that sentence?
User avatar
P
jabhatta2
VP
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1400
According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  02 Nov 2021, 18:14
avigutman wrote:
jabhatta2 wrote:
^^ How to reconcile the two ?


jabhatta2 the Laos sentence isn't exactly analogous to the total fat sentence. To make it more analogous, consider this sentence:
Laos has less land area than the land area of Great Britain.
How do you feel about that sentence?


Hi avigutman - Thank you for responding

Not sure how the structures are different - is it the presence of the idiom: more x than y | less x than y perhaps ? If you could shed some light on how the presence of the idom 'more x than y' | 'less x than y' changes the situtation, that would be helpfull.

Regarding your specific q - visualizing it - i think your sentence is okay

Land area of Britain is compared to Land area

The idiom is less x than y and X[=land area] and Y [land area of Great Britain] are the same nouns [land areas]

In a simpler (also analogous statement i think?) -- mangoes are compared to oranges so its not un-heard of to compare two object nouns.
Attachments

Avi 2.JPG
Avi 2.JPG [ 41.89 KiB | Viewed 1536 times ]

User avatar
D
avigutman
Tutor
Joined: 17 Jul 2019
Posts: 1312
Location: Canada
Schools: NYU Stern (WA)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45
GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45
Re: According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  03 Nov 2021, 09:38
Expert Reply
jabhatta2 wrote:
avigutman wrote:
jabhatta2 wrote:
^^ How to reconcile the two ?


jabhatta2 the Laos sentence isn't exactly analogous to the total fat sentence. To make it more analogous, consider this sentence:
Laos has less land area than the land area of Great Britain.
How do you feel about that sentence?


Hi avigutman - Thank you for responding

Not sure how the structures are different - is it the presence of the idiom: more x than y | less x than y perhaps ? If you could shed some light on how the presence of the idom 'more x than y' | 'less x than y' changes the situtation, that would be helpfull.

Regarding your specific q - visualizing it - i think your sentence is okay

Land area of Britain is compared to Land area

The idiom is less x than y and X[=land area] and Y [land area of Great Britain] are the same nouns [land areas]

In a simpler (also analogous statement i think?) -- mangoes are compared to oranges so its not un-heard of to compare two object nouns.



jabhatta2
Laos has less land area than the land area of Great Britain.
Less x than y.
I think the problem is that in this case x is just "land area" whereas it ought to be "Laos' land area".

You may recall from Manhattan Prep's material the distinction between closed markers and open markers in parallelism.
I think the reason we're okay with x comparable to y but not with less x than y comes down to that.
avatar
rkgmat750
Intern
Intern
Joined: 11 Nov 2021
Posts: 2
Location: India
Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 Ross '24
GMAT 1: 620 Q48 V30
Re: According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  13 Nov 2021, 00:17
Would choice D be correct if it said "total fat of wild animals is less than that of live stock fed on grain and they have more fat of a kind thought to be''. In that case, would the comparison be correct since we are comparing fat with fat and not animal with animal
User avatar
P
Vatsal7794
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2021
Posts: 294
Location: India
Schools: IIMB EPGP'25 Schulich Sep'24 intake Fisher '26
GMAT 1: 660 Q44 V36
GPA: 3.5
Re: According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink] New post  24 Nov 2021, 00:09
Hi Experts

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma EducationAisle ChrisLele mikemcgarry AjiteshArun egmat sayantanc2k RonPurewal DmitryFarber MagooshExpert avigutman EMPOWERgmatVerbal MartyTargetTestPrep ExpertsGlobal5 IanStewart
other experts AnthonyRitz

I marked answer as C for this question. But can someone please explain me how to decide what we are comparing?

I thought in C we are comparing Similar to similar (Fat to Fat) and in B we are not comparing similar to similar (Fat to Livestock)

But after seeing the explanation i got to know the comparison in B was Between Animal to Animal and In c it was Animal to Fat.
Please explain me how to decide which entity are we comparing?
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr [#permalink]
24 Nov 2021, 00:09
NEW TOPIC
POST REPLY
Downloads
My Bookmarks
Reviews
   1   2   3   4   5   6   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6685 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
239 posts

cron

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions