Yup, questions with long underlined portions can be overwhelming, especially when the entire sentence is underlined!

But you shouldn't give these questions any special treatment -- you still want to follow the same general approach described in our beginner's guide to SC: look for definite errors and then compare the remaining options based on meaning.

Sure, you have more ground to cover when the underlined portion is long, but think of it as an opportunity: when the underlined portion is longer, there are more potential decision points, and in some cases, you'll actually have an easier time finding concrete reasons to eliminate answer choices. Also, keep in mind that questions with shorter sentences and shorter underlined portions can be really hard (like this one!), so try to remember that long underlined portions aren't necessarily harder.

When you see such a question, take a deep breath, and try to apply the same efficient approach that you should be using on all SC questions. And if it takes a bit longer than 90 seconds, that's not necessarily an issue (for more on that, check out our video on time management myths).

I hope that helps!
_________________

I don't think we are trying to compare two actions. Instead, we are trying to say that "Chicago-style" deep-dish pizza's crust resembles a pie crust more than [it resembles] a traditional pizza-style flatbread.

This comparison is much more clear in the OA (D): "Chicago-style" deep-dish pizza's crust is more like a pie crust than [it is] like a traditional pizza-style flatbread.

But keep in mind that this isn't an official question, so I wouldn't let it keep you up at night.
_________________

As explained here, there's a fine line between adding words for clarity/emphasis and repeating the same clarification/emphasis in multiple ways. You should definitely look for other decision points before relying on something this subtle to make eliminations. In this case, you could certainly argue that "previously" is added for clarity/emphasis and thus is not redundant.

I think the issue with (C) lies in the "however costly previously" part. But note that this isn't an official question, so I wouldn't stress over it too much!

If you have follow-up questions about this one, please post them on the thread for this specific problem.
_________________

Yeah, unfortunately most of the issues here are idiomatic. It's worth noting that if this is indeed an official question*, it's an old and long-retired one -- so I wouldn't worry about it too much. (*If anyone has actually seen this one in a paper test, please let us know and attach a screenshot!)

(D) and (E) are the most interesting (and share a similar issue), so let's start with those. Notice that the non-underlined portion talks about fanatics/fanaticism in general, not specific examples of fanatics/fanaticism. But then in (D) we have, "in spite of the ruthlessness of the countermeasures." This makes it sound like we are referring to some specific countermeasures that already exist, and that doesn't fit with the non-underlined part.

In (E), we have, "even though there are ruthless countermeasures" -- again, it sounds like we are talking about specific, existing countermeasures instead of just countermeasures in the general sense. That doesn't quite fit with the non-underlined portion.

The expression "however ruthless the countermeasures" fixes that issue in (A) -- now it sounds like we are talking about hypothetical countermeasures (no matter how ruthless you make your countermeasures, you probably won't be able to control whatever fanaticism you are dealing with). (A) suggests that we are talking about countermeasures in general (not specific, existing countermeasures), and that fits much better with the non-underlined portion.

(B) and (C) are just hot messes:

• "(C) no matter threat the countermeasures are ruthless" - "no matter threat" doesn't make any sense ("no matter THE threat..." would be better). Also, I don't see how "no matter threat" relates to "the countermeasures are ruthless" -- they just look like two separate and nonsensical phrases.
• "(B) whatever the ruthless there is in the countermeasures" - Again, this just doesn't make any sense... "whatever the ruthless there is"?? MAYBE it would be okay if it were, "whatever ruthlessness there is in the countermeasures," but "whatever the ruthless" doesn't work.

Again, even if this is an official question, it's pretty darned old. The GMAT has tried to move away from idioms as decision points, so don't waste too much time on this. And if you do have any other comments/questions about this one, please post them on the thread for this specific problem.
_________________