According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat fr

Hey it might help to take a much simpler example in your head while deciding between these 2 options. Consider this - I have more money than my brother vs I have more money than that of my brother. Here, the 2nd option is literally saying that "you" have more money than "your brother's money", which doesnt make sense. How can you have more money than money? I thought of this while deciding between these 2 so thought I'd share. The 2nd comparison doesn't seem bad to me.

"I have more money than my brother." Isn't it an incorrect comparison wherein money is compared with brother?

Or may be the better way to communicate the intended meaning would be - " I have more money than my brother has."

Hi BhaveshGMAT, technically speaking, there are two ways to interpret the above sentence:

(i) I have more money than my brother (has).

(ii) I have more money than (I have) my brother.

Since interpretation (ii) is completely non-sensical, the only logical interpretation of the sentence I have more money than my brother is I have more money than my brother (has). Hence, the sentence I have more money than my brother is correct.

Bottom-line: When the the comparison does not have any ambiguity, GMAT may choose to not explicitly mention the verb (has in the above case) after than.

There are numerous such official examples. In the examples below, I have mentioned in bold, the implied verb.

In 1982 the median income for married-couple families with a wage-earning wife was $9,000 more than that for families in which only the husband was employed.

This is equivalent to:

In 1982 the median income for married-couple families with a wage-earning wife was $9,000 more than that (median income) (was) for families in which only the husband was employed.

Plants are more efficient than fungi at acquiring carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, and converting it to energy-rich sugars.

This is equivalent to:

Plants are more efficient than fungi (are) at acquiring carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, and converting it to energy-rich sugars.

Ranked as one of the most important of Europe's young playwrights, Franz Xaver Kroetz has written 40 plays; his works—translated into more than 30 languages—are produced more often than those of any other contemporary German dramatist.

This is equivalent to:

Ranked as one of the most important of Europe's young playwrights, Franz Xaver Kroetz has written 40 plays; his works—translated into more than 30 languages—are produced more often than those (works) of any other contemporary German dramatist (are produced).


This would be completely fine as well.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses Comparison ambiguity, its application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.

Thanks for the detailed post. I am stuck between option B and C. May I request you to throw some light on these two answer options and why is B the correct choice?

There’s a lot of clunkiness here, but the biggest issue is the word “they”: the only possible referents are “wild animals”, “livestock”, or “studies.” And none of those are likely to “think [that fat] is good for cardiac health.” (E) is gone, and (B) is the best answer.

I was looking for than after more

Can I read B sentence as:

According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat from wild animals and meat from domesticated animals, wild animals have less total fat and more of a kind of fat thought to be good for cardiac health than livestock fed on grain

please suggest AndrewN .



(A) wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat they think is

(B) wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat thought to be

GMATNinja I have a rather basic question. Is Livestock singular or plural? How do we find out if Livestock mentioned in this question be considered as a singular or plural noun?

Posted from my mobile device

The finance department took into account a broader set of expenses than those used by the marketing department when each group determined a return-on-investment ratio.


A) department took into account a broader set of expenses than those used by the marketing department when each group determined a

B) department took into account a broader set of expenses than those used by the marketing department when each group determines a

C) department took into account a broader set of expenses than the marketing department when each group determined a different

D) department took into account a broader set of expenses than that used by the marketing department when each group determined a

E) department, taking into account a broader set of expenses than that used by the marketing department, so each group determined a
Hide Answer
D

mikemcgarry GMATNinja
EducationAisle
VeritasKarishma

Would like to draw your attention to a similar post


The explanation for this to eliminate C - We can not compare set of Expenses to Marketing Dept

My confusion is why here can we not using the knowledge of previous question use

C) department took into account a broader set of expenses than the marketing department(Took) when each group determined a different

Would request your help in this I am losing my mind over this

shauryahanda

A is taller than B.
A has more fat than B.
We are comparing characteristics of A and B. Fine. We can do without adding a placeholder verb. A and B are the ones who are taller/shorter and have less fat/more fat.

Tree A bears sweeter apples than tree B.
Are we comparing characteristics of tree A and tree B? No. We are comparing a characteristic of their apples. Then, using just 'tree B' does not make sense. It seems we are saying that tree A's apples are sweeter than tree B.


Look at the two sentences we are discussing:

... wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain...
Comparing a characteristic of wild animals and livestock.

... finance department took into account a broader set of expenses than the marketing department...
Comparing a characteristic of the set of expenses. So this is not correct.

You should instead write:
... finance department took into account a broader set of expenses than that used by the marketing department ...

Also note that you need to take into account the other options available. In option (C), the use of "different" doesn't work. What the sentence wants to say is that they were calculating the same ratios but they gave different inputs. (C) implies that they were calculating different ratios.

Thank you VeritasKarishma and other moderators

I think i am clear with the concept now(after reading your explanations and i Really can't thank you enough for it)

In order to solidify my concept just help me with this

A has more cars than B -> A and B are getting compared -> and this is correct
A has sweeter apples than B's -> A's apples and B's apples compared -> and this is correct
A has sweeter apples than B -> A's apples and B compared -> and this is wrong

AM I Correct ?

A few of my best students have gotten their asses thoroughly kicked by this one, so please don’t feel badly if you struggled with it. (And most of the early responses look great!) Success on this question is mostly about your ability to be incredibly literal with the meaning, particularly as it relates to the pronouns in the sentence. (For more on pronouns, check out our good old YouTube webinar on the topic.)


“They” has to refer back to a plural noun, but our only options are “studies” (which makes no sense, because studies can’t think) or “wild animals” (which also makes no sense, unless you think wild animals moonlight as nutritionists. (A) is out.


There’s no pronoun here, so that’s cool. And I think the meaning works: “wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain” is fine. The second part seems fine, too: “wild animals have… more of a kind of fat thought to be good for cardiac health.”

I don’t see any huge issues, so let’s keep (B).


As described in our rambling guide to the word “that”, “that” is a singular pronoun in this type of situation. In (C), I guess it has to refer to “total fat,” but that doesn’t really make sense: “wild animals have less total fat than the total fat of livestock fed on grain…”

That’s kind of a mess. Wild animals have less fat than livestock, but it wouldn’t make sense to say that “wild animals have less total fat.. than the total fat…” That comparison is thoroughly wrong. (C) is out.


This comparison is very clearly wrong: “total fat… is less than livestock.” You could, I suppose, also argue that the “they” isn’t 100% clear – but the illogical comparison is the most straightforward issue. (D) is out, too.


There’s a lot of clunkiness here, but the biggest issue is the word “they”: the only possible referents are “wild animals”, “livestock”, or “studies.” And none of those are likely to “think [that fat] is good for cardiac health.” (E) is gone, and (B) is the best answer.

How can we say that in B, even though given as the right answer, clearly compare the total fat of wild animals with the fat of livestock?
In many cases, such statements are considered as wrong comparisons?

Furthermore, what is wrong with statement C and why here 'that of' is awkward? Is it because C is not the answer and B is?

PS: Kindly explain it in simple words. I am not looking for grammar jargon. Thank you.

A few of my best students have gotten their asses thoroughly kicked by this one, so please don’t feel badly if you struggled with it. (And most of the early responses look great!) Success on this question is mostly about your ability to be incredibly literal with the meaning, particularly as it relates to the pronouns in the sentence. (For more on pronouns, check out our good old YouTube webinar on the topic.)


“They” has to refer back to a plural noun, but our only options are “studies” (which makes no sense, because studies can’t think) or “wild animals” (which also makes no sense, unless you think wild animals moonlight as nutritionists. (A) is out.


There’s no pronoun here, so that’s cool. And I think the meaning works: “wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain” is fine. The second part seems fine, too: “wild animals have… more of a kind of fat thought to be good for cardiac health.”

I don’t see any huge issues, so let’s keep (B).


As described in our rambling guide to the word “that”, “that” is a singular pronoun in this type of situation. In (C), I guess it has to refer to “total fat,” but that doesn’t really make sense: “wild animals have less total fat than the total fat of livestock fed on grain…”

That’s kind of a mess. Wild animals have less fat than livestock, but it wouldn’t make sense to say that “wild animals have less total fat.. than the total fat…” That comparison is thoroughly wrong. (C) is out.


This comparison is very clearly wrong: “total fat… is less than livestock.” You could, I suppose, also argue that the “they” isn’t 100% clear – but the illogical comparison is the most straightforward issue. (D) is out, too.


There’s a lot of clunkiness here, but the biggest issue is the word “they”: the only possible referents are “wild animals”, “livestock”, or “studies.” And none of those are likely to “think [that fat] is good for cardiac health.” (E) is gone, and (B) is the best answer.