Because 70 percent of the people of India use wood as their sole fuel

Thank you for the kind words! And yes, the meaning issue in (B) also creates a problematic comparison. When we use a prepositional phrase such as "in 1960" that phrase will typically be used to modify an action.

For example, "Tim dropped as many babies in 1997 as he did in 1994." Notice that the comparison is between how many babies Tim dropped in one year and how many babies he dropped in another year. Most importantly, the prepositional phrases need to modify an action ("dropped", in this case).

In (B) we have "resulting in wood now costing eight times as much... as in 1960." There's no verb for "in 1960" to modify! Contrast this with (D) in which we have "wood now costs eight times as much.. as it did in 1960. Now there's an action, "costs" for "in 1960" to modify, and so we have a logical comparison.

So you were definitely on the right track, abhishek001!

Here is my analysis of this question:

The first thing to notice is that this is a comparison question. It tells us that the result of losing 10 million acres of forest is that wood now costs 8 times as much to collect and distribute as it did in 1960.

(A) resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute than
(C) resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute than it did
(E) and wood now costs eight times as much as a result to collect and distribute than

The constructs to compare are ‘as much as’ or ‘more/less than’. We cannot use ‘as much than.’
Hence, options (A), (C) and (E) are incorrect.


(A) resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute than
(B) resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute as
(C) resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute than it did

Options (A), (B) and (C) use present participle phrase beginning with ‘resulting’ at the end of the sentence joined with a comma. The preposition ‘in’ needs a noun as its object. What was the result? The result was an increase in the cost of collecting and distributing wood.
But options (A), (B) and (C) give ‘wood’ as the object of the preposition. But wood was not the result. Something like ‘resulting in an increase in the cost of …’ might have worked.

On the other hand, ‘as a result’ is a conjunctive adverbial phrase that takes a clause after it. Hence ‘wood now costs 8 times …’ can be placed after ‘as a result’ as done in option (D). Note that the conjunction ‘and’ written before ‘as a result’ correctly joins the two clauses in option (D). A conjunctive adverb cannot join two clauses alone.

(E) and wood now costs eight times as much as a result to collect and distribute than

Option (E) joins the clauses with ‘and’ and we lose the meaning that it is the result of cutting forests. ‘As a result’ appears later breaking the flow of the ‘result’ which is ‘wood now costs eight times as much to collect and distribute as in 1960’ Hence again, option (E) is incorrect.

Answer (D)

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Comparison

• “as much A as B” is the correct, idiomatic construction; A and B must be parallel.
• A comparison must always be made between similar elements.

A: This answer choice incorrectly compares how much wood now costs to collect and distribute to "in 1960"; please remember, a comparison must always be made between similar things. Further, Option A incorrectly uses the unidiomatic construction "as much A ("to collect and distribute") than B ("in 1960"); please remember, “as much A as B” is the correct, idiomatic construction; A and B must be parallel.

B: This answer choice incorrectly compares how much wood now costs to collect and distribute to "in 1960"; please remember, a comparison must always be made between similar things.

C: This answer choice incorrectly uses the unidiomatic construction "as much A ("to collect and distribute") than B ("it did in 1960"); please remember, “as much A as B” is the correct, idiomatic construction; A and B must be parallel.

D: Correct. This answer choice correctly compares how much wood now costs to collect and distribute with "it did in 1960". Further, Option D correctly uses the idiomatic construction "as much A ("to collect and distribute") as B ("it did in 1960").

E: This answer choice incorrectly compares how much wood now costs to collect and distribute to "in 1960"; please remember, a comparison must always be made between similar things. Further, Option E incorrectly uses the unidiomatic construction "as much A ("as a result to collect and distribute") than B ("in 1960"); please remember, “as much A as B” is the correct, idiomatic construction; A and B must be parallel.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Because 70 percent of the people of India use wood as their sole fuel, ten million acres of forest have been lost there since 1960, resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute than in 1960.

(A) resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute than
(B) resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute as
(C) resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute than it did
(D) and as a result wood now costs eight times as much to collect and distribute as it did
(E) and wood now costs eight times as much as a result to collect and distribute than

The obvious entry point to this topic is through the idiom as much as. We have as much as, only in B and D. Choices A and C and E are corrupted with as much than or as much as than.

The problem with D seems to be that the wood is not doing anything to use the verb "did" in 1960. 'Costs' is used as linking verb in the context and per se, we would not require an action verb 'did' in the other part. It would be just enough to say 'in 1960' as in B.

In B, the adverbial modifier 'comma plus resulting' aptly modifies the previous clause - ten million acres have been lost --and brings out the impact of the abuse of the forests amply.

IMO, B.

Official Explanation

Idiom; Grammatical construction

Logically, the sentence attempts to say that the loss of forest has increased the price of wood. In the sentence as written, as well as choices B and C, the participle resulting modifies ten million acres of forest rather than the loss.

Note that any of the choices containing the comparison error as much . . . than are incorrect. This disqualifies A, C, and E. That leaves only B and D for consideration.

A. This choice is incorrect for the reasons stated above. Furthermore, it is unclear what role costing plays: it could be either an adjective form of the verb to cost or a noun form of to cost.

B. This choice is incorrect because the participle resulting modifies ten million acres of forest rather than the loss. Furthermore, it is unclear what role costing plays: it could be either an adjective form of the verb to cost or a noun form of to cost.

C. This choice is incorrect because the participle resulting modifies ten million acres of forest rather than the loss. Furthermore, it is unclear what role costing plays: it could be either an adjective form of the verb to cost or a noun form of to cost.

D. Correct. This clearly expresses the consequence that the loss of forest has increased prices of wood and uses the correct comparison as much . . . as.

E. This choice is incorrect because it uses the incorrect comparison as much . . . than.

The correct answer is D.

Correct answer: D

"As much as" is the correct idiom.
The comparison also needs to be "as it did ..." because the comparison is between "wood now costs eight times as much ... as it did"

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma egmat daagh chetan2u and other experts could you please explain the official solution a lil more as to why exactly is B incorrect? I was stuck b/w B and D. I just couldn't point to an error in B. 'resulting' is actually modifying the previous whole clause right? Is the 'as much .. as in 1960' not correct in B? Please help. Thanks

Hey gmat ninja can the comparison be an issue to eliminate B and select D as an option. Thanku in advance and also like to state your videos and explanations are really helpful in getting a hold on verbal gmat. Thanku.

Posted from my mobile device

Could I also eliminate based on the word “since” in the sentence ? It demands that I use the present tense and I narrow down to D and E and chose D because it mentions the noun that is being compared.

Can someone please let me know if my approach is correct.

Posted from my mobile device

If you're asking whether you can eliminate (A), (B), and (C) based on a tense issue, the answer is not really.

Those options all use the participle "costing," which is functioning here as an adjective. VERB-ing words, when used as adjectives, don't have a tense. I can write, "The man running with scissors stabbed himself in the face," or I can write, "The man running with scissors will stab himself in the face. "Running" describes the man. It doesn't tell me when he injures himself. (Much more on "-ing" words in this article.)

Also, "ten million acres of forest have been lost there since 1960," is an independent clause, so it's true that "since" dictates the verb tense for this clause, but it wouldn't necessarily do so for another one.

I hope that helps!

Hi,

Can someone please explain what does 'DID' refer to in options C and D? Clearly, there is no costed used anywhere in the sentence so how can the use of DID be justified?

Thanks in advance.

Hello, jayarora. The verb cost is one of those weird ones in English that is the same, under certain circumstances, in both the present and past tense, so you would not be looking for costed anywhere. Here is a sample sentence that could discuss either a present or past situation:

The kiwis cost $3.50 per half dozen.

You would have to rely on contextual information to confirm whether these fruits had been purchased or you were being informed as to what they would cost if someone were to purchase them. In the sentences at hand, we can replace did in the following manner:

(C) Because 70 percent of the people of India use wood as their sole fuel, ten million acres of forest have been lost there since 1960, resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute than it had cost in 1960.

The meaning of the sentence is askew, as GMATNinja pointed out earlier, among others. Looking at the other sentence,

(D) Because 70 percent of the people of India use wood as their sole fuel, ten million acres of forest have been lost there since 1960, and as a result wood now costs eight times as much to collect and distribute as it had cost in 1960.

Make what you will of (D)--I see some disagreement above--but did itself is not an issue. I hope that helps. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

GMATNinja
Hi GMAT Ninja,

Two questions
1. In an example above, you refer to C as wrong because of resulting in wood. Any reason you are not considering the entire phrase 'resulting in wood now costing eight times more to collect and distribute' because then 'resulting in' makes perfect logical sense. Also, the phrase 'wood now costing eight times more to collect and distribute' has no verb so resulting in can modify the entire phrase right?
2. Considering wrong usage of 'resulting in wood' in C is why D is the right answer, what if Ans D was written ' as a result wood now costs eight times as much to collect and distribute as in 1960'. Would this be considered correct comparison?
I think the comparison is now incorrect because 'wood now costs' is now a clause and needs another clause after the second 'as' to be parallel. Also 'as in 1960' will incorrectly compare costs vs costs and not the clause 'wood costs eight times as to collect and distribute'

Please provide your advice.

Thanks

GMATNinja

If Option D were : "(D) and as a result wood now costs eight times as much to collect and distribute as" ie, if the helping verb at the end of option D were omitted, would it still be the correct choice?
Can we argue that ellipsis would take care of the verb to modify? (Or NOT ?, because the shift in verb tense - costs now v/s costed in 1960 - doesn't allow the ellipsis in the first place)

Thanks in advance!
Debo

Good question! It's certainly fair to consider the entire noun phrase, but the noun phrase is, in essence, about a certain kind of wood, one that happens to have the characteristic of "costing eight times as much..."

So we have to ask ourselves which is clearer: (1) that the result of the lost forest acres is expensive wood, or (2) that the result of the lost acres is that something happened -- specifically, that wood became more expensive.

At first glance, it might seem like there's no real difference between the two, but the problem with interpretation (1) is that it has two potential meanings: if something results in expensive wood, does it mean that the wood became more expensive or that expensive wood just suddenly appeared? Sure, if you read (C) a few times, you can figure out what the author likely meant, but it simply isn't as clear or direct as (D), which has only one reasonable interpretation (wood became more expensive).

And if you want an easier, more concrete error in (C), "as much...than" is clearly wrong.


It's true that your hypothetical is problematic, but I'd be careful about making comparison generalizations. It's certainly possible for a clause to be implied. For example, saying "The Warriors won fewer games in 2019 than in 2017" is fine, because "in 2017" seems to function the same way that "in 2019" functions: both phrases modify when the Warriors won games.

The difference between this example and yours is that it's not as clear what "in 1960" is doing, because there's no other prepositional phrase to give us a clue. So I wouldn't say this sentence would be wrong because it violates a rule. The problem is that the sentence is really confusing.

The takeaway: don't try to make universal rules about something as complicated as comparisons! You have to consider how context informs the clarity and logic of every option. (And if you want more on comparisons, check out this video and this sequel.)

I hope this helps!

We have, "wood now costs eight times as much to collect and distribute as {blank}." If we fill that blank with "it did in 1960", it's clear that we are comparing how much wood costs to collect/distribute NOW and how much wood cost to collect/distribute IN 1960."

If we fill that blank with "in 1960", the comparison becomes less clear: wood costs eight times as much to collect/distribute as what in 1960? Sure, we can logically fill in the blank with something that makes sense, but with (D) we aren't forced to do that.

Does that make your version wrong? Maybe. As I've said before, it's rarely a good idea to waste brain cells on tweaked versions of answer choices. If you understand why (D) is the best choice out of the five options here, then you've done your job!

Looking at a single sentence in a bubble and trying to determine whether it's "correct" or "incorrect" is an entirely different job -- one that you'll never actually have to do on the GMAT.

I hope that helps!

Since 70% of the people of India use wood as their only fuel, a lot of forest land has been lost. As a result of this loss, wood costs 8 times as much now as it cost in 1960.
There are two problems in the given sentence:

1. “As much...than” is idiomatically incorrect.

2. “Resulting in wood” gives a non-sense meaning that the result of the loss of forest land is wood!!



A. resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute than
Incorrect. For the reasons mentioned above.

B. resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute as
Incorrect. Has the second error of the original sentence.

C. resulting in wood now costing eight times as much to collect and distribute than it did
Incorrect. For the following reasons:

1. The first error of the original sentence
2. The second error of the original sentence
3. The than-part “it did” is not parallel to anything

D. and as a result wood now costs eight times as much to collect and distribute as it did
Correct. “Wood costs” is a clause here and thus communicates a logical meaning that as a result of the preceding info, wood is much more expensive now than it was in 1960.

E. as much community centers as they were purely religious edifices, structures representing a city’s commitment to a public realm, opposite of a private one
Incorrect. For the following reasons:

1. The placement of “as a result” is not preferred. For example:

a. As a result, wood costs much more to collect than it did in 1960.
b. Wood costs much more as a result to collect than it did in 1960.
The first sentence is a better construction than the second one.
2. The second ‘as’ of “as much as” is missing. The other “as” in the option belongs to “as a result”.
3. The first error of the original sentence