"Chicago-style" deep-dish pizza must have its crust, which resembles a

D is the best answer.

But my concern is with this statement: ""Chicago-style" deep-dish pizza takes longer to prepare than most other types of pizza ...."

Aren't we comparing time taken to prepare a pizza with pizzas in the above statement?

""Chicago-style" deep-dish pizza takes longer to prepare than it takes to prepare most other types of pizza....." should be the correct sentence right?

Good discussion on this thread. I would add above that in addition to the pronoun "it" being ambiguous (the GMAT is pretty tolerant of pronoun ambiguity) "it" is completely unnecessary in the given statements.

As for the point quoted above, the comparison is between the attributes of the types of pizza (specifically the preparation time). We could write the sentence this way: ""Chicago-style" deep-dish pizza takes longer to prepare than most other types of pizza take to prepare....", but the phrase 'take to prepare' is understood and unnecessary.

Written as ""Chicago-style" deep-dish pizza takes longer to prepare than it takes to prepare most other types of pizza....." compares Chicago style pizza with preparation time.

BTW, I lived in Chicago for 3 years and this passage makes me miss the Chicago-style pizza - it's fantastic...

KW

How come here it is acceptable to use "like" in Answer D when usually we have to such "such as"?

Like is used here to compare two nouns. In this example - 'pizza crust' to 'pie crust' and 'pizza crust' to 'flatbread'


D)"Chicago-style" deep-dish pizza takes longer to prepare than most other types of pizza because its crust, which is more like a pie crust than like a traditional pizza-style flatbread, must be baked alone before toppings are added

The GMAT used to be picky about 'like' and not accept its use when the context means 'for example'. The GMAT is ever evolving and the use of like is more flexible now, like in problem V65 where the use of “like” means “for example” and is called “acceptable" in the explanation.

KW

On a similar note i went to chi town last week and this sentence reminded me of the DEEP dish pizza, whose preparation required us to wait for over 45 minutes .

It's "D".
The modifiers are just perfectly placed.

Now I am jealous ! You really can't get good Chicago style pizza outside of Chicago. BTW - good use of the noun modifier starting with "whose" (you also could have used "which) - it clearly refers back to the pizza.

KW

[quote="BukrsGmat"]Experts Please confirm my approach





(C)"Chicago-style" deep-dish pizza takes longer to prepare than most other types of pizza because of its crust, resembling a pie crust more than a traditional pizza-style flatbread, must be baked alone before adding toppings.

again Resembling points to Pizza rather that its crust
also for 'must be baked ..' we need a conjunction to join it -> ..., and must ...






kyle

kindly look into this.

I went through all possible explanations i could get my hands on but none was able to clarify the Verb-ing modifier error that was pointed by BukrsGmat.

Even MGMAT explanation goes likes this for option C: Because of should be followed by just a noun (or a noun with modifiers), but, here, it is followed by an entire clause. The resulting construction—because of its crust... must be baked...—is not a proper sentence. Additionally, the action of adding (in before adding toppings) must refer back to the subject—illogically implying that the Chicago-style pizza crust can actually add toppings to itself. Finally, the comparison resembles a pie crust more than a traditional pizza-style flatbread is ambiguous; it could imply that the the Chicago-style crust is more like a pie crust than like a flatbread (the intended meaning), but could also be interpreted as meaning that the Chicago-style crust resembles a pie crust more than does a flatbread.


Rule states that Verb-ing modifier preceded by comma modifies the clause and not the preceding noun (Crust) so the fact that explanations are clarifying/stating the comparison among "Chicago crust", pie crust, and flatbread is unwarranted.


Also, for Option A and E, Is it safe to say that the phrase ", and so takes longer than most other types of pizzas to prepare it" is incorrect Not only due to no clear antecedent for "it" but also that (, and) should be used when 2 independent clauses are to be separated or for a list, none of which is fulfilled by the last phrase. ??

@Experts please help clear this out.

Thanks

Yes, the "it" is A and E is incorrect. I'm not quite sure what your question is about option C. Can you clarify for me?

KW

Official OE from Manhattan Prep

This sentence presents an interesting fact about Chicago-style pizza—it takes longer to cook than other types of pizza—and explains why: its crust must be baked separately before any toppings can be added.

To express this idea correctly and effectively, the sentence must create a comparison between Chicago-style deep-dish pizza and other types of pizza. The idea that deep-dish crust is more like pie crust than like traditional pizza crust should be expressed in a clear and unambiguous comparison. Finally, pronouns, if present, must be used correctly.

(A) This sentence states that Chicago-style deep-dish pizza... takes longer to prepare it. Here, the pronoun it does not have a sensible antecedent. (Literally, the sentence is stating that the deep-dish pizza can prepare "it"; of course, a pizza itself cannot prepare anything.) The comparison resembles a pie crust more than a traditional pizza-style flatbread is ambiguous; it could imply that the the Chicago-style crust is more like a pie crust than like a flatbread (the intended meaning), but could also be interpreted as meaning that the Chicago-style crust resembles a pie crust more than does a flatbread. Finally, the wording must have its crust... baked doesn't make sense. Taken literally, this wording suggests that the pizza itself requests or demands that the crust be baked.

(B) The subject of this sentence is The crust..., rather than the Chicago-style pizza itself. This choice thus creates an illogical comparison, involving just the crust of the Chicago-style pizza but involving "most other types of pizzas" in their entirety. Also, the action of adding (in before adding toppings) must refer back to the subject -- illogically implying that the Chicago-style pizza crust can actually add toppings to itself.

(C) Because of should be followed by just a noun (or a noun with modifiers), but, here, it is followed by an entire clause. The resulting construction—because of its crust... must be baked...—is not a proper sentence. Additionally, the action of adding (in before adding toppings) must refer back to the subject—illogically implying that the Chicago-style pizza crust can actually add toppings to itself. Finally, the comparison resembles a pie crust more than a traditional pizza-style flatbread is ambiguous; it could imply that the the Chicago-style crust is more like a pie crust than like a flatbread (the intended meaning), but could also be interpreted as meaning that the Chicago-style crust resembles a pie crust more than does a flatbread.

(D) CORRECT. Overall, this choice creates a proper sentence consisting of two clauses connected by because. Both comparisons (Chicago pizza takes longer to prepare than most other types of pizza and ...is more like a pie crust than like a flatbread) are correct and unambiguous. Finally, the sentence properly expresses the idea that toppings are added to the crust (by someone else).

(E) The comparison more like a pie crust than a traditional pizza-style flatbread is ambiguous; it could imply that the the Chicago-style crust is more like a pie crust than like a flatbread (the intended meaning), but could also be interpreted as meaning that the Chicago-style crust resembles a pie crust more than does a flatbread. The wording must have its crust... baked doesn't make sense; taken literally, this wording suggests that the pizza itself requests or demands that the crust be baked. Finally, this sentence states that Chicago-style deep-dish pizza... takes longer to prepare it. Here, the pronoun it does not have a sensible antecedent. (Literally, the sentence is stating that the deep-dish pizza can prepare "it"; of course, a pizza itself cannot prepare anything.

Hi sudarshan22 generis

Kindly underline the highlighted part.

Thanks!

Edited. Thank you.

Can you please explain why it shouldn't be "Chicago-style deep dish pizza takes longer to prepare than do most other types of pizza? Aren't we comparing the time it takes to prepare CDP vs. other types of pizza? You are comparing the action not the noun, right?

See this gmat question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/more-experie ... 59106.html
Here, it is saying Using X costs 3x as much as using Y does

Hi sushmitha2,

That do is understood. Including a do in such situations would lead to greater meaning clarity, but we cannot remove D simply because it does not include a do.

(A) & (E) have two FANBOYS conjunctions being used at once ( ....., and so... ) , which is not acceptable as per a few other threads. Another example of this wrong usage is ...,and yet...

(B) says that the pizza needs to be baked before the toppings. This is a distortion of meaning since it is the crust that needs to be baked first before being baked again with toppings, after which it could be called a 'Pizza'!

(C) If we remove the inessential clause :
"Chicago-style" deep-dish pizza takes longer to prepare than most other types of pizza because of its crust, resembling a pie crust more than a traditional pizza-style flatbread, must be baked alone before adding toppings.
As we can notice , the highlighted portion is a wrong usage

Which leaves us with option (D)


Please let me know if there is a mistake in my approach

Hello f0restreal,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your comment, we believe that we can help resolve your doubts.

Your error analysis is broadly correct. However, we would like to add that Options A and E also share a more concrete error. In both cases, the clause following the comma is supposed to be independent, as indicated by the use of the "comma + conjunction ("and so" in these cases)" construction, but both clauses - "takes longer to prepare it than most other types of pizza" and "takes longer than most other types of pizzas to prepare it" - lack independent subjects, since in both cases "it" is a part of the verb phrase "to prepare it". As a result, both options form incomplete sentences.

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