Last visit was: 15 Jul 2024, 02:02 It is currently 15 Jul 2024, 02:02
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 5327
Own Kudos [?]: 35757 [23]
Given Kudos: 9464
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 5327
Own Kudos [?]: 35757 [11]
Given Kudos: 9464
Send PM
General Discussion
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Dec 2020
Posts: 62
Own Kudos [?]: 34 [1]
Given Kudos: 923
Send PM
VP
VP
Joined: 27 Feb 2017
Posts: 1472
Own Kudos [?]: 2325 [1]
Given Kudos: 114
Location: United States (WA)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 760 Q50 V42
GRE 1: Q169 V168

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to [#permalink]
1
Kudos
My answer is (B). It took me 56 seconds.

(A) After Richard Nixon left the White House, he became a former president himself. It is nonsensical to claim that he strove more assiduously than any former president, himself included.
(B) Corrected the issue in (A) and looks good. Keep for now.
(C) See (A)
(D) Keep for now. To be compared with (B).
(E) See (A)

Between (B) and (D), the general rule is to prefer adverb (more assiduously) than Prep+Noun (with more assiduousness), but we also notice the differences in
"than any other former president" (B)
and
"than did any other former president" (D)
Which one is better? (D) makes it clear that "any other former president" is subject and can be compared to "Richard Nixon" nicely. It might be slightly better than (B).
(B) does not preclude such interpretation that "Richard Nixon strove to burnish his image for history more assiduously than he strove to burnish any other former president". But any reasonable reader would not try to misinterpret it this way.
So, I went with (B).
VP
VP
Joined: 14 Jul 2020
Posts: 1115
Own Kudos [?]: 1300 [1]
Given Kudos: 351
Location: India
Send PM
Re: In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to [#permalink]
1
Kudos
In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to burnish his image for history more assiduously than did any former president.

I found this question a bit tough, because I have to choose between one set of difference in ADVERB (assiduously) and PREPOSITION + NOUN (with .... assiduousness) and another set in Comparison between ACTION (to burnish his image for history) and NOUN (former president).

A) more assiduously than did any former president -> "Richard Nixon" is already a former president, there is no point comparing with other people included himself in the comparison list.

B) more assiduously than any other former president -> "more assiduously" is correct. I am keeping it as of now.

C) with an assiduousness unmatched by any former president -> Same as A. Incorrect.

D) with more assiduousness than did any other former president -> Comparison wise "did" looks better. But, "with more assiduousness" is using preposition with NOUN, we can say "more assiduously", it would be better.

E) more assiduously in comparison to any former president -> Same as A. Incorrect.

So, I selected B. :)
Manager
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2014
Posts: 93
Own Kudos [?]: 99 [1]
Given Kudos: 57
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
WE:General Management (Transportation)
Send PM
Re: In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Quote:

In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to burnish his image for history more assiduously than did any former president.


X strove to do something more than Y
The comparison is between X and Y and not their actions.

so, I think use of simple noun is ok to refer to Y.
I don't think we need "did" as in options A and D


A) more assiduously than did any former president Out for the above mentioned reason

B) more assiduously than any other former president Correct. The use of "Other" might seem odd, but this is fine here since Richard has already left the white house and now himself is a former president. So the comparison is between Richard and other former presidents.

C) with an assiduousness unmatched by any former president Very Awkward in the use of unmatched. Also, the choice doesn't specify the comparison with other presidents

D) with more assiduousness than did any other former president Out for the reason mentioned in A

E) more assiduously in comparison to any former president A comparison marker is already present "more". We do not need another comparison marker "comparison to".


(B)
Current Student
Joined: 26 May 2019
Posts: 731
Own Kudos [?]: 267 [1]
Given Kudos: 84
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q46 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V40
GPA: 2.58
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to [#permalink]
1
Kudos
C and D can be eliminated because direct verbs are always preferred over nouns. Also remember the VAN rule when in doubt.

“More” requires a “than” . E eliminated.

A — I couldn’t find any logic for having the verb “did” in the sentence. I admit, I did not immediately think of the illogical “former president”. A bit of a dicy keep.

B - perfect. No errors. Eliminate A and go for B.

Posted from my mobile device
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Aug 2020
Posts: 472
Own Kudos [?]: 355 [0]
Given Kudos: 30
Location: India
Concentration: International Business, Finance
GPA: 4
WE:Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
Re: In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to [#permalink]
A) more assiduously than did any former president

B) more assiduously than any other former president

C) with an assiduousness unmatched by any former president

D) with more assiduousness than did any other former president

E) more assiduously in comparison to any former president

IMO B
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 5327
Own Kudos [?]: 35757 [0]
Given Kudos: 9464
Send PM
In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to [#permalink]
Expert Reply
The official explanation is here.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 07 May 2020
Posts: 67
Own Kudos [?]: 25 [0]
Given Kudos: 11
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V28
GMAT 2: 720 Q50 V38 (Online)
Send PM
Re: In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to [#permalink]
Hello generis!
I think the did verb plays a very imperative part in the sentence because it states that Richard Nixon did something for history more assiduously than any other former president did.
If we remove did then one interpretation of the sentence can be that Richard Nixon did something for history more assiduously than for any other former president.
Please help me clarify this doubt.
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Posts: 5327
Own Kudos [?]: 35757 [3]
Given Kudos: 9464
Send PM
Re: In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to [#permalink]
3
Kudos
Expert Reply
41396302717 wrote:
Hello generis!
I think the did verb plays a very imperative part in the sentence because it states that Richard Nixon did something for history more assiduously than any other former president did.
If we remove did then one interpretation of the sentence can be that Richard Nixon did something for history more assiduously than for any other former president.
Please help me clarify this doubt.

Hi 41396302717 ,

Ellipsis (the omission of words) is a difficult subject, so I can understand why you believe what you do.

You need to persuade me that the sentence is ambiguous without the word did.
We can compare actions without repeating the verb or verb phrase the second time.
The test is whether the omission of the verb makes the sentence ambiguous.
If the omission does not create ambiguity, that omission is both correct and preferred.

Ellipsis is not an exact science.
As I noted, we do have a mandate: we can omit nouns, verbs, and even entire clauses from the second term in a comparison as long as no ambiguity exists in the comparison.

We can omit verb phrases even when we are comparing actions or the intensity of the action.
Correct: I eat more slowly than Andreas [eats].
No ambiguity exists.
We know what that the sentence means.

Wrong: I fear white supremacists more than Republicans.
Ambiguity exists.
Do I fear white supremacists more than [I fear] Republicans?
Or do I fear white supremacists more than Republicans [fear white supremacists]?
Corrected: I fear white supremacists more than Republicans do. [Do = fear white supremacists.]
In this instance, the word "do" is required to avoid ambiguity.

Correct: Hank Aaron strove harder to break Babe Ruth's home run record than any other drug-free baseball player in history.
(Mr. Aaron succeeded. He passed away last week.)
No ambiguity.
We know that Hank Aaron worked harder to do XYZ than any other baseball player worked hard to do XYZ.
Hank Aaron was not "striving hard" to break any other drug-free baseball player in history.
That sentence is ridiculous.

We face a similar situation in this sentence.
The second verb is implied because only one reasonable way to read the sentence exists.

The verb phrase "strove to burnish his reputation" is very specific.
Now, without the word "did," is the sentence really ambiguous?
If so, in what way?

There is no rule that says "If we compare two actions, the second verb must be repeated."
The measuring stick is clarity. Avoid ambiguity.

Correct, with omission (ellipsis): In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to burnish his image for history more assiduously than any other former president.

The sentence avoids needless repetition and is not ambiguous.
There is zero chance that a native speaker might believe that Nixon strove to burnish "any other former president." No chance.
You can't burnish a person.

We do not need the verb "did" in this case.

In English, when the actions of two actors are compared, the first verb is often omitted after the second subject.
Repetition of verb phrases makes English prose incredibly tedious to read.

The use of did is grammatical but unnecessary.

I hope that answer helps.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 07 May 2020
Posts: 67
Own Kudos [?]: 25 [0]
Given Kudos: 11
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V28
GMAT 2: 720 Q50 V38 (Online)
Send PM
In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to [#permalink]
generis wrote:
41396302717 wrote:
Hello generis!
I think the did verb plays a very imperative part in the sentence because it states that Richard Nixon did something for history more assiduously than any other former president did.
If we remove did then one interpretation of the sentence can be that Richard Nixon did something for history more assiduously than for any other former president.
Please help me clarify this doubt.

Hi 41396302717 ,

Ellipsis (the omission of words) is a difficult subject, so I can understand why you believe what you do.

You need to persuade me that the sentence is ambiguous without the word did.
We can compare actions without repeating the verb or verb phrase the second time.
The test is whether the omission of the verb makes the sentence ambiguous.
If the omission does not create ambiguity, that omission is both correct and preferred.

Ellipsis is not an exact science.
As I noted, we do have a mandate: we can omit nouns, verbs, and even entire clauses from the second term in a comparison as long as no ambiguity exists in the comparison.

We can omit verb phrases even when we are comparing actions or the intensity of the action.
Correct: I eat more slowly than Andreas [eats].
No ambiguity exists.
We know what that the sentence means.

Wrong: I fear white supremacists more than Republicans.
Ambiguity exists.
Do I fear white supremacists more than [I fear] Republicans?
Or do I fear white supremacists more than Republicans [fear white supremacists]?
Corrected: I fear white supremacists more than Republicans do. [Do = fear white supremacists.]
In this instance, the word "do" is required to avoid ambiguity.

Correct: Hank Aaron strove harder to break Babe Ruth's home run record than any other drug-free baseball player in history.
(Mr. Aaron succeeded. He passed away last week.)
No ambiguity.
We know that Hank Aaron worked harder to do XYZ than any other baseball player worked hard to do XYZ.
Hank Aaron was not "striving hard" to break any other drug-free baseball player in history.
That sentence is ridiculous.

We face a similar situation in this sentence.
The second verb is implied because only one reasonable way to read the sentence exists.

The verb phrase "strove to burnish his reputation" is very specific.
Now, without the word "did," is the sentence really ambiguous?
If so, in what way?

There is no rule that says "If we compare two actions, the second verb must be repeated."
The measuring stick is clarity. Avoid ambiguity.

Correct, with omission (ellipsis): In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to burnish his image for history more assiduously than any other former president.

The sentence avoids needless repetition and is not ambiguous.
There is zero chance that a native speaker might believe that Nixon strove to burnish "any other former president." No chance.
You can't burnish a person.

We do not need the verb "did" in this case.

In English, when the actions of two actors are compared, the first verb is often omitted after the second subject.
Repetition of verb phrases makes English prose incredibly tedious to read.

The use of did is grammatical but unnecessary.

I hope that answer helps.


Hello generis!
This is helpful but I still have the same doubt.
Can't a person interpret it like, In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to burnish his image for history more assiduously than for any other former president."
This is the ambiguity I am talking about.
The other interpretation, which should also be the logical one in this case, can be "In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to burnish his image for history more assiduously than any other former president did(strive to burnish)."

It would be really great if you could help me through.
Thank you.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 13 Jun 2023
Posts: 41
Own Kudos [?]: 37 [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Send PM
Re: In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to [#permalink]
41396302717 wrote:
generis wrote:
41396302717 wrote:
Hello generis!
I think the did verb plays a very imperative part in the sentence because it states that Richard Nixon did something for history more assiduously than any other former president did.
If we remove did then one interpretation of the sentence can be that Richard Nixon did something for history more assiduously than for any other former president.
Please help me clarify this doubt.

Hi 41396302717 ,

Ellipsis (the omission of words) is a difficult subject, so I can understand why you believe what you do.

You need to persuade me that the sentence is ambiguous without the word did.
We can compare actions without repeating the verb or verb phrase the second time.
The test is whether the omission of the verb makes the sentence ambiguous.
If the omission does not create ambiguity, that omission is both correct and preferred.

Ellipsis is not an exact science.
As I noted, we do have a mandate: we can omit nouns, verbs, and even entire clauses from the second term in a comparison as long as no ambiguity exists in the comparison.

We can omit verb phrases even when we are comparing actions or the intensity of the action.
Correct: I eat more slowly than Andreas [eats].
No ambiguity exists.
We know what that the sentence means.

Wrong: I fear white supremacists more than Republicans.
Ambiguity exists.
Do I fear white supremacists more than [I fear] Republicans?
Or do I fear white supremacists more than Republicans [fear white supremacists]?
Corrected: I fear white supremacists more than Republicans do. [Do = fear white supremacists.]
In this instance, the word "do" is required to avoid ambiguity.

Correct: Hank Aaron strove harder to break Babe Ruth's home run record than any other drug-free baseball player in history.
(Mr. Aaron succeeded. He passed away last week.)
No ambiguity.
We know that Hank Aaron worked harder to do XYZ than any other baseball player worked hard to do XYZ.
Hank Aaron was not "striving hard" to break any other drug-free baseball player in history.
That sentence is ridiculous.

We face a similar situation in this sentence.
The second verb is implied because only one reasonable way to read the sentence exists.

The verb phrase "strove to burnish his reputation" is very specific.
Now, without the word "did," is the sentence really ambiguous?
If so, in what way?

There is no rule that says "If we compare two actions, the second verb must be repeated."
The measuring stick is clarity. Avoid ambiguity.

Correct, with omission (ellipsis): In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to burnish his image for history more assiduously than any other former president.

The sentence avoids needless repetition and is not ambiguous.
There is zero chance that a native speaker might believe that Nixon strove to burnish "any other former president." No chance.
You can't burnish a person.

We do not need the verb "did" in this case.

In English, when the actions of two actors are compared, the first verb is often omitted after the second subject.
Repetition of verb phrases makes English prose incredibly tedious to read.

The use of did is grammatical but unnecessary.

I hope that answer helps.


Hello generis!
This is helpful but I still have the same doubt.
Can't a person interpret it like, In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to burnish his image for history more assiduously than for any other former president."
This is the ambiguity I am talking about.
The other interpretation, which should also be the logical one in this case, can be "In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to burnish his image for history more assiduously than any other former president did(strive to burnish)."

It would be really great if you could help me through.
Thank you.


Hi 41396302717,

If we closely look at the portion of the sentence which is not underlined "Richard Nixon strove to burnish his image" . It clearly states that Richard strove to burnish his image. Therefore it doesnt make any sense to say that he did something for his image and compare it with what he did for any other former president to burnish his image.

Hope that helps for anyone having the above question.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In the years after he left the White House, Richard Nixon strove to [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6979 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts