Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized for You
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
Is this sentence correct? It sounds weird to me. Also, is this sentence grammatically correct too: "plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than fungi are"?
Thanks!
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Its ambiguous. There can be two meanings of this sentence: 1) plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than plants are in acquiring fungi. or, 2) plants are more efficient in acquiring carbon than the fungi efficiency in carbon.
So no its not correct. Sentence is meant to be concise and clear
The structure here is, X is more efficient than Y, so 'are' is not needed at all since the comparison is between two nouns and not clauses. so the structure isn't correct gramatically.
You asked about the correctness of the sentence fragment:
"plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than are fungi"
The use of "are" is not misplaced. However, the fragment has some issues. It does not provide a verb action for the fungi. It is unclear what the fungi are doing. The comparisons are unclear. If we look at the full sentence (reproduced below), we will see that plants are being compared to fungi.
The original sentence, from which this sentence fragment is taken, provides more contextual details. Here is the sentence (from an official guide):
Here we can see the full meaning implied in the sentence. The meaning implies that the fungi are not as efficient as plants are at acquiring carbon. This sentence is incorrectly written. It does not directly link the fungi to the verb action of "acquiring carbon". It then confounds the meaning by adding the phrase "in the form of carbon dioxide". The comma separates the action by plants from the action.
The correct sentence is answer choice (C):
"(C) Plants are more efficient than fungi at acquiring carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, and converting it to energy-rich sugars."
Now we can clearly see the appropriate comparison. Two nouns ('plants' and 'fungi') are directly compared to each other with respect to their ability to acquire carbon. The clause "in the form of carbon dioxide" provides more details about the form of the captured carbon. The final phrase "converting it to energy-rich sugars" completes the details of the action of acquiring carbon".
Is this sentence correct? It sounds weird to me. Also, is this sentence grammatically correct too: "plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than fungi are"?
Show more
Hi chuabaka, yes both these sentences are correct:
plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than fungi are
plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than are fungi
For example:
Peter is a better driver than James is.
This is equivalent to:
Peter is a better driver than is James.
A similar official question:
It is characteristic of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, as it is of virtually every great American museum, that the taste of local collectors has played at least as large a part in the formation of its collections as have the judgments of the art historian.
Is this sentence correct? It sounds weird to me. Also, is this sentence grammatically correct too: "plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than fungi are"?
Thanks!
Show more
"Plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon dioxide than are fungi" is perfect Learn to accept it as right, stop thinking of it as weird.
"Plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than fungi are" is probably fine too, but the first sentence (with the reversed subject-verb) is more common and preferred.
See these examples from the New York Times (I just googled to find them):
- Many More Are Jobless Than Are Unemployed. - Research suggests that men are more likely to be attacked by mosquitoes than are women. - (less wealthy) people were more generous, charitable, trusting and helpful to others than were those with more wealth.
Posted from my mobile device
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.