Dear
generisI can see why D works. I have seen similar examples from Ron
here :
-
Chemistry involves philosophy less than
it does physics.
However, I think E also works, pretty much in the way that Ron explains
here and
here :
- It is nearly four times more likely
that minority graduates will plan to practice in socioeconomically deprived areas than
to work for multinational pharmaceutical corporations.When we compare “minority graduates” with “minority graduates”, it’s ok if “that minority graduates will plan” interferes the construction. In other words, in the construction “more likely A than B”, A and B don't have to be similar structures. We can compare B with some parallel part of A.
- It is nearly four times more likely
that minority graduates will plan to practice... than
that other graduates will.However, when we compare “minority graduates” with “other graduates”, A and B should be similar structures. Now, let’s take a look at E:
- E) Film studies is less concerned
with advancing proficiency in film production than
in the exploration of the cultural implications of the cinema.Since we are comparing “film studies” with “film studies”, it’s ok if “with advancing proficiency” interferes the construction. “Film studies is more concerned with advancing proficiency
in the exploration of the cultural implications of the cinema” doesn’t sound ridiculous. So, there is no need to eliminate E.
I searched multiple reputable publications for the phrase “advancing proficiency in the exploration of”, and it seems pretty common. Even though, Film studies is actually not about advancing proficiency in the exploration but just about exploring, we are not supposed to know this. Am I right?
Your comments on my thoughts are much welcome.