American productivity is declining in relation to Europe’s; the energy

American productivity is declining in relation to Europe’s; the energy expended per unit of production in the United States is as much as twice that expended in West Germany.

(A) as much as twice that expended in West Germany === the energy expended per unit of production in the United States is as much as twice the energy expended in West Germany. ----Correct structure

(B) as much as twice that of West Germany’s expenditure ===; the energy expended per unit of production in the United States is as much as twice the energy expended in West Germany's expenditure. We can see the miscarried meaning in the highlighted phrase.

(C) up to two times of West Germany’s expenditure ---,two times is not an acceptable synonym for twice in describing quantum.

(D) up to two times what West Germans expended -- structurally also the sentence is unparallel with a passive voice in one part and an active voice in the compared factor.
(E) up to double the West German expenditure-- 'double' is mostly used as a verb; in this context 'double' is used as a noun.
_________________

IMO A.

Clues:
1. As much as is correct idiom usage here and showing correct comparison.
2. Parallelism is followed b/w energy expanded in US and energy expanded in West Geramany.
3. TWICE is correct form as compared to DOUBLE.
4. UP TO usage is awkward.
5. Possesive noun Germany’s is not || with US, so B and C are out.
6. Here the comparison is b/w US and West Germany not the West German or West Germans. So, D and E are out.

Energy in a. B refers to expenditure but should refer to energy.

A it is.

The complete sentence should read:
"The energy expended per unit of production in the United States is as much as twice the energy expended per unit of production in West Germany."


In A, "the energy" is replaced by "that". "per unit of production" is understood and omitted.

comparing A and B ....B is wordier ...in A it is already implied that this energy is from the expenditure ....so explicitly mentioning it in B is redundant

I want to talk more of this problem though it is not official one

the rule of ellipsis is that
- the cut off part must be present in the previous part
- the remaining part must be paralel to a phrase in the previous part so that it is clear in meaning or the remaining part must be clear in meaning but dose not need to be parallel. we need a parallelism here to make a clear meaning. of course, if both choices are clear in meaning, the choice which is parallel is possiblly considered better.


in b,c and e, energy is compared to expenditure. this is not logic

the problem in a is that a dose not meet the the 2nd standard above. the remaing part is not parallel to a phrase somewhere. there is no "expended in the us" . moreover, "expended in germany" is not clear in meaning. so this phrase is not correct.

even choice D is not clear in meaning. "what" is not clearly energy.

this question is not good. it is presented for us to discuss about comparison and ellipsis.

Hi Expert,

Please provide the reasoning to reject all the incorrect choices. I have gone through the existing posts but could not understand anything.

In addition to daagh sir's points, please note the following errors purely due to comparison issues:

A. Correct.
The energy expended per unit of production in the United States is as much as twice that (energy) expended in West Germany.

The energy expended in USA is twice the energy expended in USA. The blue and the pink parts are parallel. ( Energy compared to energy)

B. Wrong
The energy expended in USA is twice that of West Germany’s expenditure
The pronoun "that" does not have an antecedent. ("energy of expenditure" does not make any sense.)

C. Wrong
The energy expended in USA is two times of West Germany’s expenditure.
Energy is wrongly compared to expenditure.

D. Wrong
The energy expended in USA is two times what West Germans expended.
A noun ("energy") is wrongly compared to a clause ("what West Germans expended").

E. Wrong
The energy expended in USA is double the West German expenditure.
Energy is wrongly compared to expenditure.

Here " the energy expended per unit of production in the United States is as much as twice the energy expended in West Germany " is the correct sentence. Only A has this structure. Other answer choices compare energy and expenditure

B, C, and E are excluded because they don't maintain parallelism seen in A and D.

D is in the passive tone, and would read "The energy expended per unit of production in the United States is up to two times (energy, unit, US?) West Germans expended.

A would read "The energy expended per unit of production in the United States is as much as twice the energy (expended per unit of production) in West Germany." I liked calvinhobbes's break down so stealing it.

Hi, I dont understand why 'two times' in C/'double' in E is unacceptable.

Vedikapk


As others have pointed out, the main problem in all the wrong answers is that they compare energy to expenditure, or something worse, such as the meaningless "that of WG's expenditure." Only A compares energy to energy. ("That" stands in for "energy" there.)

We could quibble about whether the energy can really be "up to" something in C/E. The choices are already wrong, and not every split reveals an error. However, we can definitely cut "two times of" in C. Even if we put up with "two times," the OF part makes it wrong.
_________________

is there any different between:

"Twice as much as" and "as much as twice"?