Intended primarily to stimulate family summer travel, the new airfare

Hi parijit , option E is correct. Both E and C use elliptical construction,
but option C introduces the an unnecessary and ungrammatical phrase "that of."

• Option C contains a parallelism error because it uses the pronoun that to "make a copy" of
some previous noun.**
In option C, the end of the sentence is
. . . shortens the purchase requirement... to a minimum of seven days rather than that of fourteen.

THAN is the comparison marker
RHS: that of fourteen
LHS: a minimum of seven days

Those two items are not parallel.
The issue is subtle.
"That of" implies that something "belongs to" fourteen,
or that fourteen, the number, is an attribute of something.
(We can't just stick "days" on the end. Analyze in isolation from E.)
In C, quite literally, the word fourteen is being compared to minimum.
Nothing belongs to fourteen ("that of fourteen"). (Nothing belongs to seven, either.)
"Seven days" is an attribute of the minimum advance purchase requirement. Fourteen is not.

Be careful not to read the word days into C.
We already have one confusing noun form, namely, the phrase that of.
In the prompt, fourteen is not followed by days. The comparison in C illogically becomes
minimum of seven days . . . that of fourteen.

Those two items are not parallel.

• In option E, the end of the sentence means
.. shortens the ... purchase requirement ... to a minimum of seven days rather than fourteen [days].
The object of the preposition OF is both clear and close to "fourteen."
The object is "seven days." Seven days and fourteen [days - what else could it be?] are parallel as the objects of the preposition OF,
and they clearly belong to ONE noun, minimum.

• Really, the easiest test is to ask: does E create ambiguity?
Recall the classic example, I like Mary more than John.
Do I like Mary more than I like John? [If yes, then I should write, I like Mary more than I like John.]
Or do I like Mary more than John likes Mary? [if yes, I should write, I like Mary more than John does.]

(E) does not create ambiguity (and there is no verb tense shift involved,
in which case we would have to adjust).
There is no rule about omission of nouns except that in context, we may omit as long as the sentence is clear.
That rule depends on context.

It is possible to argue that the phrase "that of" refers to "minimum of" and that fourteen clearly parallels seven days.

In that case, we do not need the that of in (C).
From Manhattan SC Guide, 6th edition, page 160, in which the author asserts that GMAC sometimes inserts "that of" or "those of" as a trap:
Unnecessary words: The field I most enjoy studying is that of literature.
Better construction: The field I most enjoy studying is literature.
-- Literature IS a field.
-- Similarly, we have a minimum requirement [some number of days before we can do X]. The minimum has changed. One minimum IS/WAS "seven days," and the only other number mentioned is "fourteen."
We do not need THAT OF to tell us what fourteen refers to, i.e., days.

I hope that helps.

** THAT OF?
• Sometimes a sentence contains that as a pronoun to make a "copy" of something.
Wrong: The material tested in some sections of the GMAT is like the LSAT.
Like is a comparison word. In this case, the material (the content) is being compared to the actual LSAT test.
Correct: The material tested in some sections of the GMAT is like that of the LSAT.
By inserting a "copy" of "material tested in some sections", this version compares material to material.
To check whether something is sensible, we can always replace a pronoun with its noun.
The material tested in some sections of the GMAT is like the material tested in some sections of the LSAT.

• We often need "that of" or "those of" in characteristics / attributes (OF someone or something), or possession (of something by someone)
In elliptical construction, we typically need to use that to "make a copy"
-- when we compare an attribute (compare X of Y to X of Z)
Wrong: He liked the collection of fiction rather than essays.
Wrong: He liked the collection of fiction more than essays.
In both cases, collection is incorrectly compared to essays.
Correct: He liked the collection of fiction rather than THAT [the collection] of essays.

-- when we compare a noun in possessive case, such as
Wrong: I like the painting by Matisse more than Mondrian. [compares painting to the artist Mondrian]
Correct: I like the painting by Matisse more than that by Mondrian. [compares a painting to a painting]
_________________

(A) and also shortens the advance-purchase requirement for family travel to a minimum of seven days rather than - Wrong: Run-on sentence (i.e. Verb Missing)
(B) and also lessens the advance-purchase requirement for family travel to a seven-day minimum from - Wrong: Run-on sentence (i.e. Verb Missing) 2) "shortens" should be used instead of "lessens" of length
(C) also shortens the advance-purchase requirement for family travel to a minimum of seven days rather than that of - Wrong: Meaning issue. "that of" refers to "requirement".
(D) also lessens the advance-purchase requirement for family travel to a seven-day minimum from - Wrong: "shortens" should be used instead of "lessens" of length
(E) also shortens the advance-purchase requirement for family travel to a minimum of seven days rather than - Correct

generis ,could you please explain which one is correct between C and E.

Posted from my mobile device

Hi daagh generis GMATNinja

Why is 'lessen' in option D wrong ?

GMATNinja @e-GMAT EducationAisle

CAn you please tell why Option C is wrong?
That of can represent minimum of as that can only refer to minimum with the same preposition "Of".
Is it wrong bcoz Option E is more concise

In this case, the "requirement" is a length of time -- some number of minimum days. To "lessen" could mean "to diminish" or "to decrease the severity of." That wouldn't quite make sense here. "Lessening the requirement" kind of makes it sound as though the requirement might be less stringent, and this interpretation is a little vague. Is a lesser requirement a less effective one? One that applies to fewer people? It isn't 100% clear, so "lessen" seems less precise than "shorten." That said, this feels like an awfully subtle distinction, and I'd rather have a more concrete issue to focus on.

The bigger problem with (D) is in this part: "...to a seven-day minimum from fourteen." Notice that we are going from fourteen to a seven-day minimum. In other words, in (D), we are going from a number of days to an X-day minimum. Instead, we should be going from an X-day minimum to a Y-day minimum (i.e. "... from a fourteen-day minimum to a seven-day minimum). (E) avoids this meaning problem by eliminating the word "from."



The only difference between (C) and (E) is the phrase "that of" added to (C). What do you suppose "that" refers back to? I guess it's "requirement"?

But that gives us: "... shortens the advance-purchase requirement for family travel to a minimum of seven days rather than [a requirement] of fourteen." At best, there's no need to stick "a requirement" in there, and we could probably argue that it's a little bit confusing. It's not a super-strong reason, but given the choice between the two, there's really no justification for the extra words.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hi AndrewN sir

I have some silly questions to ask:

fourteen

I shortlisted C, D and E immediately in first skim.
I was confused among C, D and E

I read C as: also shortens the advance-purchase requirement for family travel to a minimum of seven days rather than minimum of fourteen- wow seems perfect. But I was wrong.
Still not very clear , because minimum can also be noun .and that refers to minium .

Then When I went to D:
also lessens the advance-purchase requirement for family travel to a seven-day minimum from
Ok maybe lessens the requirements.- maybe , lessen refer to requirement from 14 to 7- Couldnt reject based on lessens.
I read D as:
also lessens the advance-purchase requirement for family travel to a seven-day minimum from 14 -(day minimum) - elliptical- Again, sounds right, could not reject D
Then choose D because lessens is with rrequirement; shorten is with time . The meanin refers requirements from X days to Y days . ( change in requirement)

I reject E because minimum vs fourteen: not parallel
minimum than fourteen - absolutely nonsensical


Please suggest AndrewN
< I thought carefully with C , D and E ) but got wrong in analyses of all 3 options

Please guide.

Thanks!

Hello, mSKR. I will respond to your queries below.


The problem here is that you are forcing that of to stand in for what you want only, a minimum. Why could it not refer to a requirement, for example? You also have to keep in mind that rather than invokes a comparison, X rather than Y, and X in this case, the noun before the comparison marker, is days. Thus, it makes sense to jump directly into a number-to-number comparison. That of adds nothing but confusion to the sentence.


You can lessen the severity of something, but you would reduce a multi-day requirement from X to Y. Lessen is not used in most contexts. But if you were unsure about this point, you could still consider the comparison at the end: to a seven-day minimum from fourteen. The preposition from seems to skew the comparison, as though we are comparing a minimum to a number. If you straighten out the from/to part and adjust accordingly, you get a strange from a fourteen-day minimum to seven. Would you not expect something more like a seven-day minimum to compare like with like? (It would, of course, be inappropriate to simply end with a seven or a seven-day.) Again, you cannot go by what you want to be there, what you want the meaning to be.


In (E), a minimum of prefaces the first item before the comparison marker, rather than: a minimum of seven days rather than... We can make the second item, Y, as short as we want, so long as the correct comparison can be reasonably inferred. Consider:

X rather than Y
a minimum of seven days rather than a minimum of fourteen days
a minimum of seven days rather than fourteen days
a minimum of seven days rather than fourteen

Since days precedes our comparison marker, we should be looking for days after it, and (E) delivers to that end, even if it omits the actual word days. (It is not as though we are scratching our heads asking, Fourteen what? The context fills in the comparison unambiguously.)

I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask me.

- Andrew
_________________

Why can't 'that' in Option 'C' refer to minimum here?

'that' can refer to 'minimum', but it is unnecessarily wordy.

The comparison is crystal clear -- a minimum of seven days rather than fourteen.

We don't need to say a minimum of seven days rather than a minimum of fourteen.

One can also argue that 'that' refers to 'requirement'. Choice E clears up this debate.
_________________

No of days (countable) can be shorten (for a simple reason that we know the exact number here). Also time period is shorten where there is definite time period.

Shorten is to make it short.

Lessen means to diminish or to make less (unknown number).

Actually, we can't use "that" to refer to minimum. We only comparisons of the type "that of X" when we are referring to two distinct things that we are distinguishing through the use of modifiers:

I preferred the screenplay of the remake to that of the original film.
Cab drivers here, like those in other cities, can now use navigation apps to find their way.

We can't say "I have a love of jazz and not that of pop." This implies that there is a specific love of pop that I don't possess, and this doesn't make sense. (The fact that the love of pop may exist doesn't matter.) Veering closer to our original, we also can't say "The prosecutor recommended a sentence of 10 years rather than that of 5 years." Again, there is no existing sentence of 5 years to compare to. In fact, it may help to notice that my examples above are about specific entities (THE screenplay of THE remake vs. THAT (screenplay) of THE original, the actual cab drivers in THIS city vs. those (drivers) in other cities). With an indefinite article (a love, a sentence, a minimum), there isn't a concrete, existing thing to compare with THAT.
_________________

in option A] cant we say that - ''which allows AND which also shortens'' are parallel. we got two verbs for the subject 'new airfare'. I hope comma before and is a point of rejection because many a times experts say to ignore that.

'and also' is fairly acceptable as seen on official questions in the past.

Can any one elborate why A is wrong?

Posted from my mobile device

Hello BOB1993,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, Option A fails to form a complete sentence.

As "allows" and "shortens" are both parts of a modifying phrase, there is no active verb to act upon the subject "the new airfare".

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

Hello himanshu0123,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, if we take the construction of Option A as "which allows...and which also shortens", both "allows" and "shortens" will become parts of modifying phrases; since "Intended" is a past participle rather than an active verb, there will be no active verb to act upon the subject "the new airfare", meaning Option A will not form a complete sentence.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team
_________________

Yes, those verbs are parallel.




The comma shouldn't be there, but that's not something you need to worry about—GMAC problems do not test the presence/absence of individual commas.

The presence/absence of a comma COULD be tested, however, if there's a relationship to the presence or absence of a comma somewhere else.
A modifier, for instance, must be either blocked off with commas—on BOTH sides, if the modifier doesn't begin or end the sentence—or not blocked off with commas. A modifier that's comma-blocked on one side but not on the other side is incorrectly written. THIS point could be tested with a comma/no-comma split on only one side of the modifier.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________