Apart from having more permanent employees than PreX, the

I don't know the source, but there are a number of problems with this sentence.

Problem #1: the phrase "higher educated" is grammatically and idiomatically incorrect. What the author is trying to say is "more highly educated" or simply "better educated".

Problem #2: in (B), the OA, at the very end, the verb "do" (plural) is used for PreX, the name of a company. This is actually a classic GMAT agreement mistake ---- a collective noun, such as the name of a company, is singular and must take a singular verb. Thus, "PreX does ABC" would be correct, and "PreX do ABC" is completely incorrect. Whoever wrote this question fell into this very popular SC trap.

Problem #3: The phrase "apart from having X" is very informal, far too colloquial to appear on the GMAT. The GMAT would set up the contrast in a much more sophisticated way.

This question needs some serious work before it would be a helpful practice question for folks studying for the GMAT.

Mike
_________________

@Mike
Thanks so much for clearing my doubt. I eliminate B because of "do", and also "those" is not clear in B, but it's the OA. Poor written question.

Hi Mike,

If not for the 'better educated' problem cant we choose option E... this doesn't have 'do' and plus we are comparing UpskirT with PreX right??? no need for a verb here

With a verb after the word "than", ambiguity arises --- is the word after "than" in parallel with the subject or the object? In other words,

"A has more X than B"
Does this means
(1) A has more X than B has X?
(2) A has more X than A has B?
It's true, from logic, we can figure out that PreX should be in parallel to the other company, UpskirT, but from the GMAT's point of view, if the grammar itself is unclear, and we need to resort to logic to resolve a grammatical ambiguity, then that's a poorly written sentence. In a well-written sentence, grammar and logic say that same thing.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Could some mod please correct this question? There's seems to be something wrong particullarly in answer choice B

Thanks!
Cheers
J

Hi Mike,
In this question, apart from questionable OA, "higher" doesn't sound right. "more" is more suitable. Can you please clarify?

And I guess as per logic, we can arrive at an Option E) Can you please highlight any other issue with Option E) ?
_________________

Dear kinjiGC,
Yes, I see your point. I think what they are trying to say is "more highly educated" or "better educated."

Option (E) makes the classic subjective/objective comparison mistake.
UpskirT has higher educated employees than PreX
We know they are trying to compare company to company, but the construction suggests that they are comparing individual employees to a whole company. If logic tells us one thing, and grammar indicates another, then it's not a well-written sentence.

Does this make sense?
Mike
_________________

But if we say 'Stacy eats apples quicker than Alex' ? Isn't that okay? And if it is, then why can't the one above be?

Agree with this reasoning. Mike so how come the above sentence ( Stacy ...... Alex) is correct but the option E is not ??

Dear gauravkaushik8591,
I'm happy to respond.

First of all, let's keep the BIG picture in mind. This question is atrocious. It is of abysmal quality. Investing time in making sense of it is not necessarily going to help you prepare for the GMAT. Here's a much higher quality question, worth your energy & attention & reflection.
https://gmat.magoosh.com/questions/3263

Next, I will say --- how to put this delicately? --- the example sentence you gave might not be the most appropriate, because at least to American ears, it has what one might call off-color innuendos. Let's just choose a different sentence to discuss.
Fred writes letters faster than Howard.
Now, from the point of view of logic, we absolutely know what the sentence is trying to say --- we absolutely know that Fred can write letters, Howard can write letters, and Fred most certainly cannot write Howard, whatever that would mean. We know that, based on logic. BUT, whenever we have the grammatical structure:
[subject][verb][object][comparative]"than"[noun #3]
this structure contains grammatical ambiguity: is the third noun, after the word "than," being compared to the subject or to the object? Nothing in the grammar itself resolves that ambiguity.

The GMAT SC sets a very very high standard. It is not enough if a sentence leaves open grammatical ambiguity and then we have to use logic to resolve the ambiguity. By GMAT standards, that is not a well-written sentence. For the GMAT, a well-written sentence is one in which grammar and logic and rhetoric are all united in the message they are delivering. For the GMAT, a well-written sentence has structural integrity: every aspect of the sentence supports every other aspect of the sentence, and together, they present a united meaning that is powerful and clear. If the grammar leaves open ambiguity, and we need to resort to logic to shore up the opening left by the grammar, that is not a sentence with structural integrity.

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________