DmitryFarber wrote:
No, size makes no difference. We always use "fewer" for countable and "less" for uncountable. Here, we use "less" rather than "fewer" because we are comparing the overall size of production, rather than the specific number of tons. This generally happens with weights and measures. For instance, I would say "I weigh less than 200 pounds," not fewer, because I am talking about a measurement, not a group of things. I'd also say "I want less than 3 ounces of coffee" or "I have less than 5 feet of rope left." Sure, we can count pounds, ounces, and feet, but we are using them to talk about an amount, not a number. 3 ounces of coffee is a way of saying how much coffee you have, but we're not counting individual coffee beans. Similarly, in the original problem, we're not counting individual grains of rice; rather, we're measuring overall rice production.
great, thank you, manhantan expert.
I am satisfied with oa but
In 1979 lack of rain reduced India's rice production to about 41 million tons, nearly 25 percent //less than those of the 1978 harvest.//
(A) less than those of the 1978 harvest
(B) less than the 1978 harvest
(C) less than 1978
(D) fewer than 1978
(E) fewer than that of India's 1978 harvest
but "less than the 1978 harvest" modify "production" or " 41 million tons" pls, help
the trick here is that we can not realize that in choice E, "that of india's 1978 harvest" is redundant if you are non native. non native can not realize that "production of india's 1978 harvest" is redundant. the second thing is "harvest" can be "a time of a crop"'' and , in this meaning "production of harvest" is not redundant.
what saves us from this trick is that "that of" in choice E must refer to " production", which is clearly non count. so, "less" must be used not "fewer".