It makes complete sense now. This is unbelievable. I have tried to solve the "mystery" for so long when it has been about a typo all along. This is nuts, but thanks to you I can now proceed to a peaceful sleep! I would post it in the PS forum, I was just very preoccupied with my exponents skills and this thing has been a nightmare quite honestly. And this is coming from a 45Quant (not that this is a lot) guy

I mean I was so focused on this one technical thing that everything else, such as "Here there’s only one exponential term" or "\(2^4 * a = (2^5)^b\)" did not matter.
Now, I am interested, for the curiosity sake, can we isolate \(a\) if hypothetically there were no typo. In other words, can we express \(a\) in terms of \(b\) if we have "original" condition not as intended, but as \(16^{a}=32^{b}\), or bring \(a\) from being an exponent down to representing just a number? Magically, I have been able to do/explain it (as per above) in a non-algebraic way, so there must be a way to do it algebraically. In other words, is this, \(2^{4a−4}\), as far as we can go if we wanted to isolate \(a\) or what direction would we take? I want to get rid of \(2^{4}\) from \(2^{4a}\) expression, to have \(a\) as a base, is this possible? Perhaps you have to use logs or something.
Anyhow, don't bother if it is too difficult. It is definitely beyond the scope.
It is a good day, thank you so much. I will repost the question as appropriate later.
P.S. GMATTERs beware of inattentive reading

Geez.