Financial uncertainties from the accident at Three Mile Island may pro

(I received a pm)

Well, you don't need to completely understand the exact usage of the all words in order to solve this question, including transitive vs. intransitive issue. Whenever you see a comparison, check the parallelism and ambiguity. Once again, you see a comparison –> you quickly check for parallelism and meaning. This will kick off at least two choices.

A. “is” at the end of the sentence is parallel to nothing that comes before. In other words, you need any form of “to be” on the left side of a comparison that is parallel to “is” on the right side. But there is no “to be” before “than”. For example, D has “to be” on the left of comparison, and that “to be” is parallel to “is” at the end. Thus D has correct parallelism but A doesn’t. A is out.

B and C. Remember, whenever you see any preposition before X in the construction “X than Y”, you need either to repeat that preposition or to repeat the verb, depending on the meaning. For example:

- A is more close to X than Y.

This comparison is ambiguous because of preposition “to”. You have to say one of the below, depending on the meaning:

- A is more close to X than to Y.
- A is more close to X than is Y. (meaning: A is more close to X than Y is close to X)

The two sentences above totally differ in meaning. In our case, the meaning of the question requires the latter of the above. That’s because we are comparing what is a more serious deterrent to the nuclear industry. So, we have:

- A proves to be a more serious deterrent to X than is Y. (“to be” is parallel to “is”)
The implied meaning: A proves that A is a more serious deterrent to X than is Y. (is = is)

So, B and C miss “is” at the end, even though either has “to be” on the left. Therefore, we don’t know what B and C actually mean. B and C are out.

E doesn’t have “to be” on the left side, so there is no need for “is” on the right side either. However, after “than” we still need to repeat a certain verb that is parallel to the verb on the left side, for example:

- Uncertainties may prove a more serious deterrent to the nuclear industry than political opposition may (prove)
- Uncertainties may prove a more serious deterrent to the nuclear industry than political opposition does (prove)

E misses both of the above, so it’s ambiguous. E is out.

D has correct parallelism and unambiguous meaning.

Extra: “uncertainties from the accident” and “uncertainties resulting from the accident” are both correct even though the latter is clearer. But eliminating answer choices basing on word choice (because one of choices sound better) is a hasty mistake. We have more serious problems to tackle first, such as grammar. In addition, “prove X” and “prove to be X” are both correct. Once again, you can see that eliminating answer choices because of word choice is not a good thing.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Transitive vs. intransitive: https://gmatclub.com/forum/eminent-econ ... 28-80.html

In the above thread, we spent crazy amount of time on discussing transitive vs. intransitive issue. How dare you forget it? :-D
Knowing “transitive /intransitive” always helps me clarify whether a VERBING is a noun or an adjective. That’s important.

What do you think “deterring” is in “uncertainties may serve even more deterring to the nuclear industry” ? Noun or adjective?

Well, “decrease” can be both transitive and intransitive. In the construction “A decreases B”, either A or B can perform the action “decrease”. In other words you can say “A decreases B” or “B decreases”. For example: “the company decreased the prices” or “the prices decreased”. That’s why, “decrease” is both tra. and intra.

However, “reduce” is only transitive. In other words, you can say “the company reduced the prices”. But you CANNOT say “The prices reduced”. Because prices can’t reduce themselves - only somebody or something can reduce prices. Or you can say “the high prices reduced the demand”. But, once again, you CANNOT say “the demand reduced”. You have to say “the demand decreased” or “something reduced the demand”.

Because “decrease” is both tra and intra, “decreasing” can be either a noun or an adjective, for example:
- Decreasing the number of workers was a bad idea. (Noun. What was a bad idea? Decreasing the number of workers was.)
- Decreasing applications force business schools to grant even more scholarships. (Adjective. what kind of applications? Decreasing applications)

Because “reduce” is only transitive, “reducing” can be only a noun (when used without a doer), not an adjective.
- Reducing the number of workers was a bad idea. (Noun. What was a bad idea? Reducing the number of workers was.)
- Reducing applications... (Incorrect)

Similarly and finally: “deter” is a transitive verb. A can deter B, but B CANNOT deter itself. You can say “high walls can deter an enemy attack”, but you CANNOT say “an enemy attack can deter” because an attack can’t deter itself. Hence, “deterring” can be only a noun, not an adjective, for example:
- Deterring an enemy attack is the main purpose of this wall. (Noun. What is the main purpose? Deterring an enemy attack is)
- Deterring walls...

Conclusion: Since “deterring“ can only be a noun, A and E have an illogical meaning. The meaning of the construction “uncertainties may prove even more deterring to the nuclear industry” requires “deterring” to be an adjective, or sound as “uncertainties may prove even more threatening (scary, unpleasant) to the nuclear industry”. But that’s not possible because “deterring” can only be a noun.

Since “deterring” is a noun, you also can’t say “more deterring” in that sentence. In other words, you can’t say “Fuji is a more apple than any other apple”. That’s illogical. You need an adjective: “Fuji is a tastier apple than any other apple”.

To sum up, you first need the right noun form of “deter”. It’s “deterrent”, not “deterring”. Next, you need an adjective to make sense. So you say “something is a more serious deterrent than another thing”, as does D.

Phew!