Mavisdu1017 wrote:
Hello expert,
Is it a wrong comparison in D?
A diet that has 30% fewer Calories than (they normally eat) —> this compares “diet” to “eat”, I think it is a wrong comparison.
Should it be: A diet has 30% fewer Calories than DIET (they normally eat) DOES.
Or: A diet has 30% fewer Calories than (what they normally eat) DOES.
Hope experts helps! Thanks.
Attachment:
Screen Shot 2022-07-01 at 14.22.07.png [ 70.92 KiB | Viewed 1400 times ]
Hello,
Mavisdu1017. I see that you have already received a few responses above, but since you followed up with me by PM, I will add my thoughts on the matter. First of all, I wrote
a lengthy post on
as _____ as comparisons a few months back, and I think it may prove useful to you. In that article, I encourage people to test a given comparison to see whether it yields a
reasonable interpretation, even if some words seem to be missing. We should employ the same strategy here, rather than looking to apply some supposed rule or another without much thought. Also, if you can find any reason, comparison or no, to doubt an answer choice, you should mark that doubt. It is okay to be unsure of certain matters, but you want to keep moving.
Quote:
Laboratory rats and mice live up to 40% longer than usual when fed a diet of at least 30% fewer calories than that which they would normally eat, but that otherwise contains all necessary vitamins and nutrients.
(A) of at least 30% fewer calories than that which they would normally eat, but that otherwise
It could just be me, but I have major reservations about
when fed a diet of... calories. I am not sure whether
of can work on its own in this context, since
calories do not appropriately describe what the animals were fed. My doubt would be removed entirely with another word to qualify the diet, as in
consisting of. In terms of the comparison,
that must refer to
diet, and
which must be used as the relative pronoun because in English, we do not stack
that pronouns, as in
... than that that they would normally eat. It is a grammatical peculiarity. So, is the comparison inherently unsound? I do not think so. There are times in which a modifier may be applied to a noun ahead of the object of a preposition—see the following questions from
the Official Guide:
LINK 1,
LINK 2, and
LINK 3—and I see no reason why a comparison could not adhere to a similar tendency. The
that preceding
otherwise is difficult to follow. Since the sentence uses
of earlier instead of
that, it appears as though
that at the end of the underlined portion is commenting on the normal diet, rather than on the calorie-restricted diet.
1)
{a diet that} they would normally eat2)
but {a diet} that otherwise contains all necessary vitamins and nutrientsCompare:
1)
a diet of at least 30% fewer calories2)
but {a diet} that otherwise contains all necessary vitamins and nutrientsIf nothing else, we have to question the lack of parallelism if the second interpretation is intended. In short, I would see off the original sentence for
a diet of calories and everything that that
of entails.
Quote:
(B) with at least 30% fewer calories than what they would normally eat though otherwise it
A diet
with fewer calories? This might be a more functional preposition than
of on its own—e.g.,
a library with 30 percent fewer books as opposed to
a library of 30 percent fewer books—but I still feel as though it could be improved. Luckily for us, we see a glaring target in
it at the end of the underlined portion. The latter half of the comparison reads,
{the diet} they would normally eat though otherwise {the diet} contains... We can take the time to sort out what we think the sentence is driving at, or we can search for a more reasonable alternative.
Quote:
(C) that has at least 30% fewer of the calories than they would normally eat, but otherwise it
Two things stand out to me here. First,
of the is entirely unnecessary within the comparative
fewer calories, so this answer choice is already on shaky ground. Then, the same
it pops up that I objected to before. I will save my discussion of the comparison for the next answer choice, but here, there is a noticeable lack of clarity at the end:
{Animals live longer} when fed a diet that has at least 30% fewer {calories} than {the diet/the calories that the animals} would normally eat, but otherwise {the diet} contains all necessary vitamins and nutrients.We should understand that
it refers to the first diet mentioned, the calorie-restricted diet, but that is not apparent on first read.
Quote:
(D) that has at least 30% fewer calories than they would normally eat but that otherwise
I would argue that the comparison and subsequent resolution of the sentence is clearer
without being explicit, or, in other words, by omitting just what would follow
than. Check for a reasonable interpretation:
1)
a diet that has at least 30% fewer calories than {the calories that} they would normally eat2)
a diet that has at least 30% fewer calories than {the diet that} they would normally eatI prefer the second interpretation, since, strictly speaking, animals do not
eat calories (but can be said to
consume some quantity of them), and it is true that in this sort of context, the exam would typically repeat a verb or use a substitute in an appropriate form of
to do, but what we have to ask ourselves is whether either interpretation is unsound. Is it incorrect to omit a verb in a basic comparison between a diet that has more or less of something than another diet? I would say no. The context of this sentence allows us to appreciate that one aspect of a diet is being compared to that same aspect of another diet without being explicitly mentioned, and perhaps the author felt it would be less clear to use both
would... eat and
has or
does. That is admittedly a judgment call, one that I imagine a native English speaker would not think twice about, but I suppose the takeaway is not to apply your understanding of comparisons too narrowly. At least the two parts of the sentence that comment on the calorie-restricted diet are better connected by way of the grammar:
a diet that has X but that otherwise contains YAgain, I think the above sentence is easier to follow than one that said,
a diet that has fewer calories than the X that {the animals} would normally eat but that otherwise contains YPerhaps the point I have been aiming to make on clarity makes more sense now. In short, I see no compelling reason to eliminate (D), even if it takes some liberties.
Quote:
(E) that has at least 30% fewer calories than that which they normally eat, though that otherwise
If we work out the logic of this sentence, it follows a similar pattern as the one above:
a diet that has fewer calories than the X that {the animals} would normally eat, though that otherwise contains YThe parallelism that links the beginning with the end is much harder to spot, and it is difficult to find any justification for the presence of the comma +
{al}though. You would not think a similar-meaning word to
but would make that much of a difference, but it is much easier to follow the iteration of the sentence that answer choice (D) creates than this one.
There you have it. I am not sure whether you feel any better about comparisons, but perhaps this question has taught you that you cannot let your guard down. Just when you think you have everything figured out, another sentence will come along and challenge your preconceived notions of what a correct sentence should look like.
- Andrew
close
22 Jul 2020, 08:41
