Financial uncertainties from the accident at Three Mile Island may prove even more deterring to the nuclear industry than political opposition is.

(A) from the accident at Three Mile Island may prove even more deterring to the nuclear industry than political opposition is
(B) from the accident at Three Mile Island may prove to be even more serious a deterrent to the nuclear industry than political opposition
(C) from the accident at Three Mile Island may prove to be an even more serious deterrent to the nuclear industry than political opposition
(D) resulting from the accident at Three Mile Island may prove to be an even more serious deterrent to the nuclear industry than is political opposition
(E) resulting from the accident at Three Mile Island may prove even more deterring to the nuclear industry than political opposition


SC52561.01

"Financial uncertainties from the accident" is extremely unclear. I don't understand what it means.
"Financial uncertainties resulting from the accident" makes a whole lot more sense. Now I know that we are talking about the financial setback due to the accidental damage. So I will directly go to (D) and (E).

(D) - .... A may prove to be an even more serious deterrent than is B... (Correct)
(E) - .... A may prove even more deterring than B (incorrect usage since deter is used with an object. It automatically sounds wrong, doesn't it?)
Th usage is "The scarecrow deterred birds (object)."

(A) has both issues.

Financial uncertainties from the accident at Three Mile Island may prove even more deterring to the nuclear industry than political opposition is.

(A) from the accident at Three Mile Island may prove even more deterring to the nuclear industry than political opposition is
(B) from the accident at Three Mile Island may prove to be even more serious a deterrent to the nuclear industry than political opposition
(C) from the accident at Three Mile Island may prove to be an even more serious deterrent to the nuclear industry than political opposition
(D) resulting from the accident at Three Mile Island may prove to be an even more serious deterrent to the nuclear industry than is political opposition
(E) resulting from the accident at Three Mile Island may prove even more deterring to the nuclear industry than political opposition


SC52561.01

... deterring to the nuclear industry is not correct, as deter is a TRANSITIVE verb and requires a direct object

"Financial uncertainties from the accident" is extremely unclear. I don't understand what it means.
"Financial uncertainties resulting from the accident" makes a whole lot more sense. Now I know that we are talking about the financial setback due to the accidental damage. So I will directly go to (D) and (E).

(D) - .... A may prove to be an even more serious deterrent than is B... (Correct)
(E) - .... A may prove even more deterring than B (incorrect usage since deter is used with an object. It automatically sounds wrong, doesn't it?)
Th usage is "The scarecrow deterred birds (object)."

(A) has both issues.

VeritasKarishma

AjiteshArun GMATNinja DmitryFarber : Your inputs would be appreciated

In your above explanation for option E, you have stated incorrect usage since deter is used with an object.

I agree in the example quoted The scarecrow deterred birds (object)." deter is used as a verb & therefore 'birds' is object here. However in option E 'deterring' is not acting as a verb rather 'may prove' is a verb for Subject ( Financial uncertainities).Then why we need to have object afer deterring.As per my understanding 'Deterring' is an adjective .

SecondlY, even if 'deterring' is a verb here then is not 'deterrent' a verb in option D.Also in option D 'to be' is used.Please share the significance of 'TO BE' here & why it is important to have.

Please clear the gap in my understanding.

"Financial uncertainties from the accident" is extremely unclear. I don't understand what it means.
"Financial uncertainties resulting from the accident" makes a whole lot more sense. Now I know that we are talking about the financial setback due to the accidental damage. So I will directly go to (D) and (E).

(D) - .... A may prove to be an even more serious deterrent than is B... (Correct)
(E) - .... A may prove even more deterring than B (incorrect usage since deter is used with an object. It automatically sounds wrong, doesn't it?)
Th usage is "The scarecrow deterred birds (object)."

(A) has both issues.

Hi Karishma!

Could you please explain why (C) is wrong? I would like to understand why the second portion of the sentence is flawed.
Thanks!

Hope i'm not piling on.
There are already many great explanations:

Two things make it wrong.
1. "Financial uncertainties resulting from the accident" is better in sense than "Financial uncertainties from the accident" is.
2. What is parallel to verb 'to be' in the second half part of C? There's nothing, so it makes meaning ambiguous as follows:
- Financial uncertainties from the accident at Three Mile Island may prove to be an even more serious deterrent to the nuclear industry
than
political opposition is(deterrent to the nuclear industry).
- Financial uncertainties from the accident at Three Mile Island may prove to be an even more serious deterrent to the nuclear industry
than
financial uncertainties are(deterrent) to political opposition.

The second reason is more tangible reason than the first one. But since 'resulting from' is there in D and E, it's an issue worth mentioning.

Hope this helps.

AjiteshArun GMATNinja

In addition to what everyone has already talked about, We do need “prove to be” instead of “prove” because “prove” itself is a verb and it doesn’t make sense to say “financial uncertainties prove...”

Is this reasoning okay ?

Looking forward to hearing from you guys

Regards,

Posted from my mobile device

IMO, the main issue here is whether we need an AUXILIARY verb (or not) in the second part of the comparison ?

Two options have AUXILIARY verbs in the second segment of comparison (a & d) and three options don't (b,c,d).

WHEN we need an AUXILIARY verb in the second part of the comparison
If there is any chance od DOUBLE meaning & tense mismatch, we must include an AUXILIARY verb in the second part of the comparison.

For example, I love dogs more than my wife.
This sentence has two meanings.
(1) I love two things (dog and my wife) and I love dogs more than I love my wife.
(2) I and my wife love dogs and I love dogs more than she loves dogs.
So, this sentence requires an auxiliary verb in the second segment of comparison to ensure the same meaning to all.
Correction: I love dogs more than my wife does. or I love dogs more than I do my wife.

Back to the question
Financial uncertainty maybe even more discouraging to the nuclear industry than political opposition.
This sentence has TWO meanings.
(1) Financial uncertainty is problematic........
(a) to the nuclear industry and
(b) to political opposition.
and Financial uncertainty is more problematic to the nuclear industry than to political opposition.

(2) Both (a) Financial uncertainty and (b) political opposition are discouraging to the nuclear industry.
Financial uncertainty is more discouraging to the nuclear industry.

Since this sentence provides DOUBLE meaning, we must include an AUXILIARY verb in the second part of the comparison..

So, B, C & E OUT.
So, Answer A or D