Laos has a land area about the same as Great Britain but only four mil

Hello niyatisuri,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, the use of "as" is actually not incorrect here, since the comparison is drawn between "is about the same size" and "Great Britain's land area (is)" - the second verb is hidden; remember, in comparison statements, a repeated verb can be omitted for the sake of clarity.

The real error in Option C is that it alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "but in Laos with a population of only four million people"; the construction of this phrase leads to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that Laos has a land area comparable to the land area of Great Britain, but it has a population of only four million people, and many of them are members of hill tribes ensconced in the virtually inaccessible mountain valleys of the north. Further, Option C suffers from a pronoun error, as "many" - used as a pronoun here - lacks a clear referent. Additionally, Option C uses the needlessly wordy phrase "the same size as Great Britain's land area", leading to awkwardness and redundancy.

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

I'd say the problem here is redundancy. Consider a few simple examples:

1) Tim's height is comparable to Dan's.

That seems fine. We're comparing Tim's height to Dan's height. The two are comparable.

2) Tim is about the same size as Dan.

Also fine. We're using the word "size" to communicate info about their measurements.

3) Tim's height is about the same size as Dan's.

Something funky is going on here. Why would we need both "height" and "size" here? "Height" is information about a person's size. So at best, it's redundant info. And does a height itself have a size, the way a person does? We can write "Tim's height is 6 feet," but can we write, "Tim's height has a size of 6 feet?" I don't see why we would. At the very least, it's more confusing than our first two constructions.

(C) is most similar to example #3 above. It makes sense to say that one land area is similar to another land area, as (E) does. But to say that one land area's size is similar to another land area's size is, at best, redundant, since "land area" itself conveys information about size.

Clear and concise beats redundant and confusing every time.

The takeaway: the issue isn't that "as" is used to compare nouns in (C), but rather, that the logic is problematic. If you saw, "Tim is as tall as Dan," it wouldn't be terribly productive to agonize over whether you're comparing the nouns "Tim" and "Dan" or the clauses "Tim is" and "Dan [is.]" What matters is that the comparison makes perfect sense, so the construction is okay. When in doubt, this should be the star you steer by.

I hope that clears things up!

Hey guys, I've seen people say that "many" is used as a pronoun in choice C, but I'm quite confused.

Is one of the key issues with C not the pronoun issue concerning "them" (not "many"), which must refer back to a plural noun? Doesn't the word (pronoun) "them" lack a logical referent, rendering C useless right away? I'm confused as to why there was discussion focusing on the word "many" instead of the word "them" here.

You're right that "them" doesn't properly refer back to "people" in answer C, because the sentence structure in C is a bit of a mess. But if C were rephrased so it was a proper sentence, it could be possible for "them" to correctly refer to "people" (the only earlier plural in the sentence), so perhaps that's why others in the thread haven't commented on it -- there are several reasons why C is wrong here.

Hi GMATNinja, IanStewart, could you please help elaborate on the use of "whom" in option E?

My understanding is that "whom" is used if the noun which "whom" refers to is the object of the verb. In the context of option E, last clause ( "many of whom are members of hill tribes..." ), how does this work out?
Verb: are
Subject: many
Object: members of hill tribes
Please correct me if I am wrong here, but unable to figure out how does "whom" fit in here? Is this another use case of "whom"?

Technically, yes, it is a different case. We do use "whom", at least in very formal writing, when it is an object of a verb. We also use it in what is called the "genitive case" in grammar jargon -- that is, when we use "of whom" or "of them" to talk about possession. In some languages, like Latin, words in the genitive case look different from words in an object case (accusative/dative/ablative cases, in Latin). But in English, all of those cases look the same, and we use "whom" or "them" in each. So it is correct to say "The employees, many of whom are trained engineers, went on a company retreat", say. So we really use "whom" any time it would be correct to use "them" instead of "they" -- we would always say "many of them", and would never say "many of they", and in the same way, we would always say "many of whom" and never "many of who".

C) that is about the same size as Great Britain's land area, but in Laos with a population of only four million people, many of them

How can many of them in C possibly be ambiguous? People is the only plural noun in the sentence. Also people comes immediately before many of them. How could there be any ambiguity. Please help.

Agree with you. I am aware that OG explanation tags them as "ambiguous", but I don't see any ambiguity in them.

As you've rightly mentioned, both logically and grammatically, them can only refer to people.

I wouldn't say "them" is ambiguous exactly. The problem is, as the sentence using answer C is constructed, "them" doesn't correctly refer to anything at all. If you take a simpler sentence:

In Laos, with its isolated rivers, many of them are home to rare fish.

you might think "them" needs to refer to "rivers", the only earlier plural. But the phrase enclosed in commas here is just a parenthetical description. The sentence needs to work if it's deleted, but if we erase that part of the sentence, we see the problem with "them" -- it doesn't refer to anything. Or at least it doesn't refer to anything in the single sentence we're looking at (it might correctly refer to a plural thing in some sentence that comes before this one, if this sentence is part of a longer passage). The sentence really needs to be rewritten to say something like Many of the isolated rivers in Laos are home to rare fish if it will work on its own.

As for the question in this thread, answer C is such a grammatical mess that it's hard to even break down (it really needs another comma after 'Laos' or else it means something truly bizarre), but as I read it, the "them" in C has the same reference problem as the "them" in my simpler sentence above.

Hi AjiteshArun avigutman. In SC - meaning trumps grammar always.

Cant (e) be a victim of mis-interpretation because (e) drops the word "Size" completely, unlike (b), (c) and (d)




In (e), land areas of Laos and land areas of Great Britain are "comparable" in what way ?

"Comparable" in size ? | "Comparable" in length ? | "Comparable" in breadth ? | "Comparable" in pollution ? | "Comparable" in average weight of population ?

(E) removes the word "size", leading to muddled meaning.

Thus i thought (E) had a muddled meaning problem because (e) doesn't state, what is it, that is comparable, between the two land areas ?

i thus chose between (b), (c) and (d), given these answer choices at-least use the word "size"

I understand (b), (c) and (d) have other grammatical problems but i thought meaning trumps always in SC.

Hi jabhatta2,
'Land area' is a specific, measurable quantity, usually measured in square km (if we're talking about countries).
For example, the land area of Canada is 9,984,670 km^2.
So it's not length, breadth, pollution, average weight of population, or anything else.

Hello jabhatta2,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, "land area" is a specific concept that refers to the surface area of a geographic location on dry land; as such, the parameter of comparison is understood to be surface area.

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

I'm curious what you mean by this. The right answer to a GMAT SC question is never grammatically incorrect. Even if you can tell what an answer 'means', if it contains a grammar error, it's not the right answer. You're never choosing between one answer that has a sensible meaning but bad grammar, and another that has a nonsensical meaning but perfect grammar. A right answer needs both -- perfect grammar and a logical meaning. Neither trumps the other.



The use of "size" in answers B, C and D is actually incorrect -- they're the answers with the muddled meaning. The sentence means to say "Laos and Great Britain are roughly equal in size" -- that is, it's saying the two countries are roughly the same size. It is not saying the areas of the two countries are roughly the same size. You wouldn't say "the length of the pool is roughly the same length as the length of the racetrack". The highlighted "length" should be cut from that sentence, and "size" should be cut from the sentence in this thread for the same reason.

Laos has a land area about the same as Great Britain but only four million in population, where many are members of hill tribes ensconced in the virtually inaccessible mountain valleys of the north.

(A) about the same as Great Britain but only four million in population, where many

(B) of about the same size as Great Britain is, but in Laos there is a population of only four million, and many

(C) that is about the same size as Great Britain's land area, but in Laos with a population of only four million people, many of them

(D) comparable to the size of Great Britain, but only four million in population, and many

(E) comparable to that of Great Britain but a population of only four million people, many of whom

I would like to bring a different perspective to this question.
A sentence written by a author conveys a particular meaning, although there could be more than one meaning but the sentence would then somehow be grammatically incorrect.
I would go with the absolute structure of the sentence and try to understand the author's perspective.
The above sentence tells me something about Laos- its land area and its population and both are related in a contrasting manner.
The second thing the modifier at the end has nothing to do with the relation between land area and the population.
The modifier is giving me some extra information about the population in Laos.

Now how do I know that it is giving me some extra information about the population in Laos ? look at the word "where" where can refer to places and we have two places in the sentence Laos and Great Britain. "where" can only refer to Laos because we are talking about the population about Laos and not Great Britain (only its land area is in discussion).
Now lets look at the non underlined part "are members"- which must be a part of a group, which group? the population of Laos.
Now lets look at "four million in population" vs "four million people".
Lets check which one is correct "(100) many of the four million in population are members ......?? or "(100) many of the four million people are members ...... ??
Many gives a sense of count. Here we have four million people which deals in absolute number of people, and four million in population also gives a sense of count but population of what ??
Also we know that in this case members refer to only people and the larger group has to be of people but can we say that the population mentioned here consists 100% of people only??

The comparison error of land area between Laos and Great Britain is already discussed by many in the above threads. I'll be discussing on the latter part that is the modifier.

(A) about the same as Great Britain but only four million in population, where many - antecedent of where should be next to it , also usage of four million in population is illogical.

(B) of about the same size as Great Britain is, but in Laos there is a population of only four million, and many - usage of four million in population is illogical ",and many" - seems to present a list of Independent clause joined by ",and" ,which doesn't provide the intended meaning of modifying the four million people group.

(C) that is about the same size as Great Britain's land area, but in Laos with a population of only four million people, many of them - ",but..."- brings an Independent clause in connection which is incorrect.

(D) comparable to the size of Great Britain, but only four million in population, and many - ",and many" - seems to present a list of Independent clause joined by ",and" which doesn't provide the intended meaning of modifying the four million people group.

(E) comparable to that of Great Britain but a population of only four million people, many of whom -- four million people forms a group consisting of people only and "whom" will refer to people only , which is correctly referring to the four million people. Correct

Hi, GMATNinja,

In option E, shouldn't we use 'many of who' instead of 'many of whom' to denote people.

Hi

Hi Deep32470,

After a preposition (like of), we should use the object form (whom). More examples: for whom, from whom, in whom, etc.

The noun after a preposition is considered the "object" of the preposition. That's why you'd use an object pronoun after a preposition instead of a subject pronoun:

• Correct: "to him" or "for her" or "to whom"
  
• Incorrect: "to she" or "for she" or "to who"

Luckily, this sort of thing is rarely a point of emphasis on the GMAT.

I hope that helps!