Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exempt

Request Expert Reply:

I don't know why there is a DO in choice E!
In E, we used DO as a pro-verb. In the non-underlined part, 'to fly' is not a verb; it is 'infinitive', unfortunately. So, how did we use DO instead of 'to fly'?
Appreciating your help, experts!

As long as it's clear what action "do" represents, it's fine. Consider an example:

In the future, Tim would like his children to eat fewer dog biscuits than they currently do.

You probably had no problem understanding the meaning of this sentence -- the "do" is a stand-in for the verb "eat." While it's true that "to eat" functions differently than the simple verb form, it also provides context for how "do" functions. That's perfectly acceptable.

Similarly, in (E), because we can easily figure out that "do" means "fly," it's okay. There's no concrete rule about what actions a helping verb can stand in for, so we have to rely on logic and context. If you're unsure if the helping verb is okay, look for other issues to evaluate.

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja AjiteshArun egmat

Will there be any comparison error, if "do" is omitted in choice E.
Edited verison:
as many as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines do, and consequently

Hi thereisaFire,

I generally view this as a preference call. That is, dropping a do does not lead to an absolute error, but may create meaning clarity issues. Here's option E without a do:

... permitting pilots... at small carriers to fly as many as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines... ← This could be read as either "Xs fly more hours per month than Ys fly" OR "Xs fly more hours per month than they fly Ys".

Keep in mind that ambiguity of meaning is not an absolute error, so when we see an option like this, we should first check for other, more important issues.

Thanks for responding.

I understand that there can be meaning ambiguity.

However, in this specific question, does the second meaning even exist?
"Xs fly more hours per month than they fly Ys"

Let us take an example,
A runs faster than B.

S1: A runs faster than B does. (The only interpretation)
S2: A runs faster than A runs B. (Non-sensical)

Only S1 conveys the logical meaning and hence even if we remove does the sentence clearly conveys the meaning.

In a similar manner, the sentence "Xs fly more hours per month than they fly Ys" means than one pilot is flying the other pilot. I think one pilot can only fly a plane and not other pilot. Hence, this interpretation sounds a little less convincing.

Therefore, removing do from option choice E should not engender any meaning ambiguity as there is only one meaning that can be concluded.

This was my understanding. Happy to hear your thoughts on this.

Hello Experts MartyTargetTestPrep, GMATNinja, GMATGuruNY, AjiteshArun, generis, @MentorTutoring, @EducationAisle;
In OG, it says that: "consequence" is wrongly assigned to the extra flying time rather than
to the ending of the exemption -- a logical prediction error.
I am confused because when you consider the participle phrase, "long-standing exemptions... airlines fly", to me, it seems to be referring to the entire event.
Will you please help.

Hello, pranjalpathak07. I think you are referring to the original sentence, which I will quote below for reference.


Let me say right away that I am no fan of the OG "logical predication" label. I can think of zero cases in which I have ever approached a question with "logical predication" in mind; neither have I seen any other Expert on this site explain a question in such terms, except when quoting the OG. That said, we do have to ask ourselves whether the with prepositional phrase is meant to comment on the entire sentence up to that point or on just the tail-end of it, specifically the comparison centered on monthly flying hours. Consider:

1) Some pilots fly more than others, with the consequence that...

2) Regulators may end certain exemptions, with the consequence that...

Since the prepositional phrase is closer to the comparison, we cannot ignore the first interpretation above and simply say that we prefer the second. Notice how (E) sidesteps the issue. The prepositional phrase has been replaced by an adverb, consequently, that is understood to comment on the entire clause, similar to framing a sentence with basically or typically. Still, if you have trouble wrapping your head around the role consequently may be playing, you could temporarily remove it from the sentence to see how the larger pieces fit together:

(E) Regulators are likely to end what are, in effect, long-standing exemptions permitting pilots of small turboprop aircraft at small carriers to fly as many as 20 percent more hours per month than pilots at larger airlines do, and consequently some carriers could be forced to hire additional pilots.

The second independent clause follows the first seamlessly, with or without the adverb—regulators will probably do something, and some carriers may react a certain way.

One final point I would like to mention is that, as is often the case in SC questions, this one presents several points of consideration that can be used to reduce the answer pool. Other Experts have drawn attention to such considerations in their posts above. I would simply like to point out that you need not fixate on any given split if another, perhaps easier, target presents itself elsewhere (e.g., the as much as versus as many as split, which could help you eliminate the original sentence prior to the prepositional phrase in question).

I hope that helps address your concerns. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew (formerly known as MentorTutoring)

Hi thereisaFire,

It exists, but we wouldn't really expect anyone to read the sentence that way.

Generally speaking, this kind of ambiguity arises when we have nouns all around the than. Your example doesn't use a noun before the than, and that's why dropping the does doesn't lead to ambiguity. However, if we choose to use a noun, we will force the reader to take a call. For example:

1. He spoke more about politics than his friend.

Does this mean
1a. He spoke more about politics than (he spoke about) his friend. [A spoke more about X than Y] ← Here the comparison is between how much he spoke about politics and how much he spoke about his friend.
or
1b. He spoke more about politics than his friend (spoke about politics). [A spoke more about X than B] ← Here the comparison is between how much he spoke about politics and how much his friend spoke about politics.

Hi sid0791,

You're right: to fly is an infinitive. However, the type of do that we see here can refer to the verb form inside the infinitive.

Is there a mistake in A also in the part where "with the consequence that" is used.

Posted from my mobile device

Hello Varane,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, the use of the phrase "with the consequence that" is not an error in Option A.

The phrase "with the result/consequence that" can be linked by a comma to a clause to refer to the outcome of the action described in the clause.

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

AndrewN

Thank you for your helpful explanation. To clarify my understanding of the sentence structure for the correct answer (E), is the ",and consequently" an example of a comma conjunction independent clause?

Hello woohoo921,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, yes; your understanding is correct: here, "and consequently" is a conjunctive phrase, and it is used alongside the comma to join two independent clauses.

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

Request Expert Reply:
Hi RonPurewal, GMATGuruNY, GMATNinja, AjiteshArun,
Can you help me to find the 'ellipsis' part, please? I mean what we are referring for pro-verb 'do' in choice E?

Hello TheUltimateWinner,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, in Option E, "do" refers to the verb "fly".

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

Thanks for the response. But, the sentence says it is to fly (not fly). We use do in stead of another verb, to fly is not a verb; it is infinitive, unfortunately. Can you clarify what's going on here GMATNinja AjiteshArun GMATGuruNY?

This statement is misleading: TO + VERB is in fact a verb form.
Proof:
John began to wash the car.
Here, the car is the DIRECT OBJECT for to wash.
Since only a verb form can take a direct object, to wash -- an infinitive -- is correctly considered a verb form.
Implication:
does/do/did can stand in for an infinitive, just as these words can stand in for any other verb form.

Note:
Even though TO + VERB is a verb form, it may not serve as the main verb for an independent clause.