Laboratory rats and mice live up to 40% longer than usual when fed a

Question

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

(B) with at least 30% fewer calories than what they would normally eat though otherwise it

(C) that has at least 30% fewer of the calories than they would normally eat, but otherwise it

(D) that has at least 30% fewer calories than they would normally eat but that otherwise

(E) that has at least 30% fewer calories than that which they normally eat, though that otherwise

GMATPREP Code : VSC003901

Show Spoiler

https://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/22/us/a-pill-to-extend-life-don-t-dismiss-the-notion-too-quickly.html

Laboratory rats and mice live up to 40 percent longer than usual when fed a diet that has at least 30 percent fewer calories than they would usually eat though otherwise contains all necessary vitamins and nutrients. The animals are free of age-related disease and appear healthy in every respect except that they are generally less fertile.

Attachment:

Untitled.png

Shamsul Hoque Khan · Answer

Are "though otherwise" and "But otherwise" correct usage?

ArindamLucky · Answer

IMO D

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

(A) of at least 30% fewer calories than that which they would normally eat, but that otherwise

(B) with at least 30% fewer calories than what they would normally eat though otherwise it

(C) that has at least 30% fewer of the calories than they would normally eat, but otherwise it

(D) that has at least 30% fewer calories than they would normally eat but that otherwise

(E) that has at least 30% fewer calories than that which they normally eat, though that otherwise

Diet should be followed by that so A and B out
Fewer of calories is wrong so C out
In D and E 
D compares the old diet and the new diet appropriately --> that has at least 30% fewer calories than they would normally eat also D follows parallelism

Posted from my mobile device

Hoozan · Answer

@EducationAise please could you provide your reasons for eliminating (E)?

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

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.

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

The comparison expressed by the (D) version is understood to mean the following:

at least 30% fewer calories than (the calories) they normally eat

While the wording of comparisons can be a little strange, as the wording of this one is, the comparison basically makes sense.

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

MartyTargetTestPrep  thanks for your response expert. I understand the meaning, and I know Choice D omits something. But I am confused whether it can be omitted in GMAT? Cuz I never met a comparison question like this one (I mean generally they don’t omit in GMAT).

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Hello  Mavisdu1017 ,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, such a comparison structure is not ideal, but it is perfectly acceptable.

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

AndrewN · Answer

Screen Shot 2022-07-01 at 14.22.07.png 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. 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 eat 2) but {a diet} that otherwise contains all necessary vitamins and nutrients Compare: 1) a diet of at least 30% fewer calories 2) but {a diet} that otherwise contains all necessary vitamins and nutrients If 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. 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. 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. 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 eat 2) a diet that has at least 30% fewer calories than {the diet that} they would normally eat I 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 Y Again, 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 Y Perhaps 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. 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 Y The 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

PyjamaScientist · Answer

Brilliant analysis  AndrewN . Loved the post above.

I have a small harmless query though. Is the usage of " would " apt here?
  than they would normally eat?    Isn't  simple present tense  apt here to convey a " fact ". " Would " is generally used in GMAT to state a " hypothetical " or " to state the future in past ". Here, the author wants to convey a  fact   about the mice's normal intake. Thus, isn't   than they normally eat    better or correct? (E) does that, but it falls due to other issues.

So, I am kind of unable to see how "would" fits here.

AndrewN · Answer

Thank you for the kind words,  PyjamaScientist . You can rest assured that if you see a certain verb used across all five iterations of a sentence in SC, such usage is acceptable. Another use of  would  is to convey a regular action from the past.

Every Monday, I would get out of bed to face another week of school.

The simple past  got  does not immediately cue the reader that the following action is habitual. Consider the sentence if  every Monday  were placed a little deeper in the sentence:

I got out of bed every Monday to face another week of school.

In short, you may want to revisit your two-pronged application of  would . The word can be far more useful. I will include references to my two most often consulted resources for SC:

1)  Dictionary.com definition

2)  Cambridge Dictionary definition

(I feel validated. I see just the usage I referred to in both.) Thank you for following up.

- Andrew

PyjamaScientist · Answer

Dear  AndrewN ,

Thank you for the links and your reply.

I agree to your analysis but don't you think that the usage of would to state a habitual action of past does not apply to the situation at hand? Because, the author is stating a fact relevant in present, rather than a habit in past.

Posted from my mobile device

AndrewN · Answer

Well, now we are delving too deep to produce an accurate and informed answer. Is the experimental diet held in contrast to one that the animals  had been fed  up to that point, or to one that these prisoner rodents had never had the pleasure of eating? We cannot lean on any portion of the sentence to definitively argue the point one way or the other. So, whether we are talking about a habitual past action or a hypothetical one must remain unknown.

My advice: relax your stance on  would . As always, check all the answer choices on the screen and ask yourself what is most reasonable and grammatically sound.

- Andrew

himanshu0123 · Answer

D]that has at least 30% fewer calories than they would normally eat but that otherwise

''WOULD NORMALLY EAT'' how do we decide whether using 'would' is fine here over simple present tense.

is 'but' a parallel marker here? what are the two parallel items here?

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

Here we are talking about a  counterfactual hypothetical  situation—i.e., a hypothetical alternative situation that contradicts actual reality.
You can't use simple tenses for counterfactuals—you have to use the 'subjunctive'. ("would VERB" for present, "would have VERBed" for the past)

In the correct version of this sentence, there are two parallel modifiers, both of which are constructed as  that + VERB .

louisinau · Answer

RonTargetTestPrep  Dear Ron!!! Glad you are here. in D are the animals eating diet or calories? what has been compared?

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Hello  louisinau ,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, in Option D the comparison is between the number of calories the rats and mice would normally eat and the number of calories in the diet.

This sentence refers both to the rats and mice consuming a "diet" - as in, a collection of foodstuffs - and to the direct consumption of calories.

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

AbbieW · Answer

I think E is not grammatically correct. For the last part ", though that otherwise", that "that" is trying to quote diet too. You can't quote a noun like that after a conjunction "though".

Kimberly77 · Answer

Hi  BrentGMATPrepNow , in D, isn't the comparison wrong as comparing calories with they "calories than they" ? Could you help? Thanks

BrentGMATPrepNow · Answer

D) Laboratory rats and mice live up to 40% longer than usual when fed a diet that has at least 30% fewer calories than they would normally eat but that otherwise contains all necessary vitamins and nutrients.

D is fine. 
Here we are comparing the number of calories in the reduced diet to the number of calories the animals would normally eat.

In other words, "Rats and mice live longer than usual

Kimberly77 · Answer

Thanks  BrentGMATPrepNow  for clalrification. So is ok that "they" follow behind than here? So to clarify is more of meaning rather than structure or comparison here?

Laboratory rats and mice live up to 40% longer than usual when fed a

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

Laboratory rats and mice live up to 40% longer than usual when fed a

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards