According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr

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.

I fail to understand why option C is incorrect. Is it because the quantities (of total fat) are compared instead of the percentages ? Also, what thoughts do you have on second part of comparison "more fat thought to be of a kind..." . Request your help on this one.

Hey it might help to take a much simpler example in your head while deciding between these 2 options. Consider this - I have more money than my brother vs I have more money than that of my brother. Here, the 2nd option is literally saying that "you" have more money than "your brother's money", which doesnt make sense. How can you have more money than money? I thought of this while deciding between these 2 so thought I'd share. The 2nd comparison doesn't seem bad to me.

Hi BhaveshGMAT, technically speaking, there are two ways to interpret the above sentence:

(i) I have more money than my brother (has).

(ii) I have more money than (I have) my brother.

Since interpretation (ii) is completely non-sensical, the only logical interpretation of the sentence I have more money than my brother is I have more money than my brother (has). Hence, the sentence I have more money than my brother is correct.

Bottom-line: When the the comparison does not have any ambiguity, GMAT may choose to not explicitly mention the verb (has in the above case) after than.

There are numerous such official examples. In the examples below, I have mentioned in bold, the implied verb.

In 1982 the median income for married-couple families with a wage-earning wife was $9,000 more than that for families in which only the husband was employed.

This is equivalent to:

In 1982 the median income for married-couple families with a wage-earning wife was $9,000 more than that (median income) (was) for families in which only the husband was employed.

Plants are more efficient than fungi at acquiring carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, and converting it to energy-rich sugars.

This is equivalent to:

Plants are more efficient than fungi (are) at acquiring carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, and converting it to energy-rich sugars.

Ranked as one of the most important of Europe's young playwrights, Franz Xaver Kroetz has written 40 plays; his works—translated into more than 30 languages—are produced more often than those of any other contemporary German dramatist.

This is equivalent to:

Ranked as one of the most important of Europe's young playwrights, Franz Xaver Kroetz has written 40 plays; his works—translated into more than 30 languages—are produced more often than those (works) of any other contemporary German dramatist (are produced).


This would be completely fine as well.

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

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.

The finance department took into account a broader set of expenses than those used by the marketing department when each group determined a return-on-investment ratio.


A) department took into account a broader set of expenses than those used by the marketing department when each group determined a

B) department took into account a broader set of expenses than those used by the marketing department when each group determines a

C) department took into account a broader set of expenses than the marketing department when each group determined a different

D) department took into account a broader set of expenses than that used by the marketing department when each group determined a

E) department, taking into account a broader set of expenses than that used by the marketing department, so each group determined a
Hide Answer
D

shauryahanda

A is taller than B.
A has more fat than B.
We are comparing characteristics of A and B. Fine. We can do without adding a placeholder verb. A and B are the ones who are taller/shorter and have less fat/more fat.

Tree A bears sweeter apples than tree B.
Are we comparing characteristics of tree A and tree B? No. We are comparing a characteristic of their apples. Then, using just 'tree B' does not make sense. It seems we are saying that tree A's apples are sweeter than tree B.


Look at the two sentences we are discussing:

... wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain...
Comparing a characteristic of wild animals and livestock.

... finance department took into account a broader set of expenses than the marketing department...
Comparing a characteristic of the set of expenses. So this is not correct.

You should instead write:
... finance department took into account a broader set of expenses than that used by the marketing department ...

Also note that you need to take into account the other options available. In option (C), the use of "different" doesn't work. What the sentence wants to say is that they were calculating the same ratios but they gave different inputs. (C) implies that they were calculating different ratios.

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.

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.

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

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

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 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.

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.