Could I also eliminate based on the word “since” in the sentence ? It demands that I use the present tense and I narrow down to D and E and chose D because it mentions the noun that is being compared.

Can someone please let me know if my approach is correct.

Posted from my mobile device

If you're asking whether you can eliminate (A), (B), and (C) based on a tense issue, the answer is not really.

Those options all use the participle "costing," which is functioning here as an adjective. VERB-ing words, when used as adjectives, don't have a tense. I can write, "The man running with scissors stabbed himself in the face," or I can write, "The man running with scissors will stab himself in the face. "Running" describes the man. It doesn't tell me when he injures himself. (Much more on "-ing" words in this article.)

Also, "ten million acres of forest have been lost there since 1960," is an independent clause, so it's true that "since" dictates the verb tense for this clause, but it wouldn't necessarily do so for another one.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hello, jayarora. The verb cost is one of those weird ones in English that is the same, under certain circumstances, in both the present and past tense, so you would not be looking for costed anywhere. Here is a sample sentence that could discuss either a present or past situation:

The kiwis cost $3.50 per half dozen.

You would have to rely on contextual information to confirm whether these fruits had been purchased or you were being informed as to what they would cost if someone were to purchase them. In the sentences at hand, we can replace did in the following manner:

(C) Because 70 percent of the people of India use wood as their sole fuel, ten million acres of forest have been lost there since 1960, resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute than it had cost in 1960.

The meaning of the sentence is askew, as GMATNinja pointed out earlier, among others. Looking at the other sentence,

(D) Because 70 percent of the people of India use wood as their sole fuel, ten million acres of forest have been lost there since 1960, and as a result wood now costs eight times as much to collect and distribute as it had cost in 1960.

Make what you will of (D)--I see some disagreement above--but did itself is not an issue. I hope that helps. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

GMATNinja
Hi GMAT Ninja,

Two questions
1. In an example above, you refer to C as wrong because of resulting in wood. Any reason you are not considering the entire phrase 'resulting in wood now costing eight times more to collect and distribute' because then 'resulting in' makes perfect logical sense. Also, the phrase 'wood now costing eight times more to collect and distribute' has no verb so resulting in can modify the entire phrase right?
2. Considering wrong usage of 'resulting in wood' in C is why D is the right answer, what if Ans D was written ' as a result wood now costs eight times as much to collect and distribute as in 1960'. Would this be considered correct comparison?
I think the comparison is now incorrect because 'wood now costs' is now a clause and needs another clause after the second 'as' to be parallel. Also 'as in 1960' will incorrectly compare costs vs costs and not the clause 'wood costs eight times as to collect and distribute'

Please provide your advice.

Thanks

Good question! It's certainly fair to consider the entire noun phrase, but the noun phrase is, in essence, about a certain kind of wood, one that happens to have the characteristic of "costing eight times as much..."

So we have to ask ourselves which is clearer: (1) that the result of the lost forest acres is expensive wood, or (2) that the result of the lost acres is that something happened -- specifically, that wood became more expensive.

At first glance, it might seem like there's no real difference between the two, but the problem with interpretation (1) is that it has two potential meanings: if something results in expensive wood, does it mean that the wood became more expensive or that expensive wood just suddenly appeared? Sure, if you read (C) a few times, you can figure out what the author likely meant, but it simply isn't as clear or direct as (D), which has only one reasonable interpretation (wood became more expensive).

And if you want an easier, more concrete error in (C), "as much...than" is clearly wrong.


It's true that your hypothetical is problematic, but I'd be careful about making comparison generalizations. It's certainly possible for a clause to be implied. For example, saying "The Warriors won fewer games in 2019 than in 2017" is fine, because "in 2017" seems to function the same way that "in 2019" functions: both phrases modify when the Warriors won games.

The difference between this example and yours is that it's not as clear what "in 1960" is doing, because there's no other prepositional phrase to give us a clue. So I wouldn't say this sentence would be wrong because it violates a rule. The problem is that the sentence is really confusing.

The takeaway: don't try to make universal rules about something as complicated as comparisons! You have to consider how context informs the clarity and logic of every option. (And if you want more on comparisons, check out this video and this sequel.)

I hope this helps!
_________________

egmat, could you please explain why the comma+verbing modifier , resulting in is wrong here?

Posted from my mobile device

This question is not very hard to understand.
Both resulting and as a result are correct usage.
The problem lies as much as not As much than.
The usage of wood now costing is not correct, it implies at this moment the price is 8 times higher than previously. Since it is a fact, we need simple presence.
That boils down to option D.

Posted from my mobile device

I think that in this question, the problem is in COSTING.
_________________