Because the Earth’s crust is more solid there and thus better able to

Hi s283, generally the words that are elided (assumed) must be present elsewhere in the sentence.

So, without ellipsis, D would be:

Because the Earth’s crust is more solid there and thus better able to transmit shock waves, an earthquake in the eastern United States will typically devastate an area (that is) 100 times greater than (an area that) will a quake of comparable magnitude occurring in the West (devastate).

AndrewN VeritasKarishma
I'm confused in correct option D
Is the comparison part after than will a ... is an inverted structure
Also why option A is incorrect

Can u give analysis of this question

Posted from my mobile device

The sentence starts with
"Because the Earth’s crust is more solid there ..."
I would like to see the antecedent (eastern United States) for "there" soon.

"it" refers to "an earthquake of a given magnitude". When we use "it", it seems that we are talking about the same earthquake. Something like "in East it will cause more devastation but not so much in the West". But the two earthquakes are not the same.

Hence it is better to say:
"an earthquake in the eastern United States will ... than will a quake of comparable magnitude occurring in the West"
Now we know that we are talking about an earthquake in East vs a similar earthquake in West - two difference earthquakes

In (C), the comparison is a problem:
... an earthquake will typically devastate 100 times the area in the eastern United States than one of the comparable magnitude occurring in the West

We need to compare the degree of devastation in the two cases. (C) seems to compare devastation with the earthquake.
(D) correctly uses "... than will..."

Also, the use of "100 times the area than ..." in (C) is not correct. We need to use "100 times more/greater than"

Hence, (D) is correct.

saby1410

VeritasKarishma
Thanks for your reply as always makes things easir to understand
One doubt in option D after than it was an inverted structure subject is coming after verb(will).

Posted from my mobile device

Hi AjiteshArun VeritasKarishma EducationAisle



I would like to take feedback from experts on my reasoning of rejection of options A , B /E and C
I reject A because : present tense devastates indicates it's more like a fact but in fact the situation is more of hypothetical . A represents as a general fact
I reject B and E because of presence of if condition . Again the statement is more of hypothetical but not a conditional statement. hence it is not a good way to write such a sentence that wants to express more about comparison of X intensity in east vs similar to X intensity in west. hence if is not suitable for such scenario.
I rejected C because of unambiguous meaning: compare area vs earth quake ( not clear as in other options)

Please suggest AjiteshArun VeritasKarishma EducationAisle

Yes, we do it often.

e.g.
A drives faster than B does.
or
A drives faster than does B.

I don't mind the use of present tense. It tells you that this is what happens usually.
An earthquake in east causes more damage than does a similar one in west. Sounds fine.
Yes, use of the conditional "if" doesn't really suit the context here. And yes, comparison in (C) is a problem.

(A) of a given magnitude typically devastates an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than it does in the West
It isn't the right usage of term it creates a ambigious meaning

(B) of a given magnitude will typically devastate 100 times the area if it occurs in the eastern United States instead of the West
Same reasoning as A

(C) will typically devastate 100 times the area in the eastern United States than one of the comparable magnitude occurring in the West
100 times the area is not providing the right meaninig


(D) in the eastern United States will typically devastate an area 100 times greater than will a quake of comparable magnitude occurring in the West
This irons out all the flaws and portrays the correct picture

(E) that occurs in the eastern United States will typically devastate 100 times more area than if it occurred with comparable magnitude in the West
Same reasoning as A
Hence IMO D

The option A :

Because the Earth’s crust is more solid there and thus better able to transmit shock waves, an earthquake of a given magnitude typically devastates an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than it does in the West.

All the responses have ruled out the option because it compares the "same" earthquake in East and West of USA. But important point is that "an earthquake" is not standing in isolation. We have "an earthquake of a given magnitude".
What we want to keep constant in East and West is the "magnitude" of an earthquake. Why is it wrong to to use single "earthquake of a given magnitude" in West and East to compare the different fallouts of the same earthquake?

Experts kindly help !!

Hi abhishekmayank,

That's a good question. The reason we can't focus on just the magnitude bit is because of the way the pronoun it works. It refers to the same noun, and it is, for example, different from pronouns like one, which can be used to refer to another thing of the same type as mentioned previously. Here's an example:

1. A movie he watched had a longer runtime in India than it did in Italy. ← This means that the same movie was longer in India than it was in Italy (maybe it was made shorter for a different market).

2. A movie made in India generally has a longer runtime than one made in Italy. ← This is meant to be read as "A movie made in India generally has a longer runtime than a movie made in Italy". Different movies.

Hello abhishekmayank,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, the pronoun “it” is used to refer to the exact same subject ("earthquake of a given magnitude" - in this sentence), and "that" is used to refer to a variation of the subject, meaning the use of "it" in Option A illogically implies that the same earthquake occurs in both the eastern United States and in the western United States.

The correct option - Option D - avoids this error, as it utilizes the noun phrase "a quake of comparable magnitude" rather than a pronoun.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Thanks AjiteshArun and ExpertsGlobal5 for the explanation !!

KarishmaB MartyTargetTestPrep egmat

Can you please help me understand my mistake, I thought that in D, we are actually comparing devastation with earthquake

...earthquake in the eastern United States will typically devastate an area 100 times greater than will a quake of comparable magnitude occurring in the West

There is no verb going back to devastate.

Hi Rickooreo,

There's a will there:

1. ... than will a quake of comparable magnitude...

please see my doubts in below options

(A) of a given magnitude typically devastates an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than it does in the West

'it' is the only problem here?

can we use 'more' instead of 'greater'?

is the comparison b/w two areas or the action of devastating. 'it does in the west' is a full clause. So are we comparing clauses on both sides of 'than' ?


(D) in the eastern United States will typically devastate an area 100 times greater than will a quake of comparable magnitude occurring in the West

is 'occurring' modifying magnitude or quake?

is the comparison b/w two areas or the action of devastating

The biggest problem with (A) is the logic. Because "it" seems to refer to the original earthquake, it sounds as though the same quake is doing lots of damage in the East and much less damage in the West. But that doesn't make sense. It's far more logical to write about the damage caused by two different earthquakes -- one in the East and one in the West.


Don't get too into the weeds about what parts of speech are being compared. I'd say we're trying to compare how much damage one earthquake does to how much damage another quake does, but it wouldn't be illogical to claim we're comparing the quakes themselves. The important thing is whether the comparison is logical.


No. We can say that one country contains more land than another country does. But if we're comparing a unit of measurement, such as area, we'd use "greater," so we'd say that the area of one land mass is greater than the area of another.


Use context. What's occurring? An earthquake!

I hope that helps!

Because the Earth’s crust is more solid there and thus better able to transmit shock waves, an earthquake of a given magnitude typically devastates an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than it does in the West.

Option Elimination -

(A) of a given magnitude typically devastates an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than it does in the West - "it" refers to the same (not different, unlike "one," which can refer to another thing of the same type). Wrong

(B) of a given magnitude will typically devastate 100 times the area if it occurs in the eastern United States instead of the West - We are comparing "if it (an earthquake of a given magnitude) with "the west." - Wrong.

(C) will typically devastate 100 times the area in the eastern United States than one of the comparable magnitude occurring in the West - We are comparing the devastation caused by an earthquake in the first part with "one of the comparable magnitude" in the West. Wrong comparison.

(D) in the eastern United States will typically devastate an area 100 times greater than will a quake of comparable magnitude occurring in the West - ok

(E) that occurs in the eastern United States will typically devastate 100 times more area than if it occurred with comparable magnitude in the West - "it" refers to the same earthquake that occurred in the eastern US. Moreover, whenever we use a present/future conditional with past in the if clause, we need "would be" in then clause and not "will."