Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
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- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
14 Apr 2022, 14:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hello, everyone. I am creating this topic in response to a string of queries by member GraceSCKao in this thread (whose question I will discuss more below), who brought up several questions at once that used an as _____ as comparison structure that seemed confusing. How about we get to the bottom of the matter and see what we can tease out? Just keep in mind the oft-written advice that GMATNinja adds to his posts: Do not invent rules. Language is a complex organism, and a foundational understanding of, say, comparisons, can get you quite far on the GMATTM. Just do not seek to create boundaries or, as someone once explained to me about a different matter, fences around fences. Stick to the basics and see what the context of a given sentence allows in the way of a reasonable interpretation.
QUESTION ONE—LINK (source: GMAT Prep)
Consider it above in as it was. Does it stand for energy, or, more specifically, energy generated through wind power? Rather than force an interpretation, examine both possibilities within the context of the comparison. I will remove the placement of the adverb now from consideration by replacing it with ellipses (...).
1) more than ten times as much energy is... generated through wind power... as energy was [generated] in 1990.
2) more than ten times as much energy is... generated through wind power... as energy was generated through wind power in 1990.
Neither comparison holds any real substance. In the first iteration, we can reasonably supply the missing verb generated, since energy was in 1990 makes no sense whatsoever, and was is a linking verb that is missing its action verb. (If you have trouble making the connection, picture a perfect tense instead: energy had in 1990. You would logically ask, Had what?) The problem, of course, is the word energy. The comparison is between the amount of energy generated at present compared to the amount generated in the past. Repeating the word energy introduces nothing more than a redundancy. Consider a simpler comparison using the same word: The generator stores more energy now than in the past. If you can find a way to squeeze in energy after than, then you have a keener eye than I.
Getting back to the sentence at hand, since energy is reintroduced in the second half of the comparison in both iterations above, we can drop both from consideration. Of course, there is a third interpretation that rectifies the issue:
3) more than ten times as much energy is... generated through wind power... as was generated in 1990.
This is a proper comparison, but notice that energy has fallen by the wayside. The logical implication is that it simply does not belong, whatever it may stand in for. Compare our corrected version of the sentence with answer choice (C):
(C) more than ten times as much energy is... generated through wind power... as was the case in 1990.
Can we reasonably summarize the process of how much energy was generated with the noun phrase the case? Sure. There are many such dummy phrases that could work here—the state of _____ comes to mind. The exact noun hardly matters, as long as it is clear that the comparison is between an amount at one point in time and an amount at another point in time. Most importantly, there are major flaws with (B) and (D), as discussed above, whereas (C) just sounds awkward.
QUESTION TWO—LINK (source: GMAT Prep)
Comparison: three times as many independent institutions of higher education charge tuition and fees of under $8,000 a year as... over $16,000.
Pith of comparison (minus unnecessary modifiers/information): three times as many institutions charge under $8,000 a year as... over $16,000.
Answer choice (E): three times as many institutions charge under $8,000 a year as those charging over $16,000.
Interpretation: three times as many institutions charge under $8,000 a year as institutions charging over $16,000.
Why has the verb charge in the comparison morphed into a different form—the adjective modifier charging—later on? The comparison should be between what some institutions charge and what other institutions charge. Keep things simple, tit for tat. If answer choice (E) is an imposter, then only (D) remains. Test within our stripped-down shell of the comparison:
Answer choice (D): three times as many institutions charge under $8,000 a year as charge over $16,000.
Yes, that makes sense, little different from saying, As many people voted in the 2020 election as voted in 2016. For the second question in a row, we can observe that when the action has fallen after the comparison marker, as _____, the actions can be compared without the subject reentering the comparison.
QUESTION THREE—LINK (source: Official Guide)
nearly eight million people, about _____ the nation's four-year colleges and universities
Now, since people are not the same as an enrollment, but rather comprise an enrollment (i.e. an enrollment of people), we can drop answer choices (A) and (D) from consideration. Notice that (B) and (C) both use those. Substitute people in each instance as a litmus test:
(B) nearly eight million people, about the equivalent of people enrolled in unis. (We need not worry about the "fluff.")
(C) nearly eight million people, about equal to people who are enrolled in unis.
In (B), what does the equivalent of people mean? Something like people, as in humanoids? We would certainly want to add number of to draw a proper comparison—nearly eight million people, about the equivalent number of people enrolled in unis—but from where would we draw such information in the sentence on the screen? (B) is in serious trouble now, since we cannot supply information just to fit what we want the sentence to say.
Answer choice (C) is little better: nearly eight million people [are] about equal to people? No. We need another amount to enter the picture. Compare to the only option that is left in (E):
(E) nearly eight million people, about as many as are enrolled in unis.
This people-to-people comparison works. Unlike what we have seen in the previous two questions, though, this one does not introduce a verb into the comparison ahead of the second element. Rather, elements X and Y themselves are being compared (not their actions). It would not be improper to write, nearly eight million people, about as many people as are enrolled in unis. This comparison is more overt—think of it as somewhat similar to an absolute phrase renaming a key noun from the main clause, versus another type of modifier that does not repeat that noun—but the lack of a subject after as _____ as in answer choice (E) does not work against it because there is only one reasonable interpretation for what is being compared, the number of people. No one would reasonably question, About as many what?
QUESTION FOUR—LINK (source: GMAT Prep)
Full comparison: the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water... as... previously thought.
Pith of comparison: [the] crust harbors up to three times as much water... as... previously thought.
Luckily for us, answer choice (B) suffers from a fatal meaning issue: harbors up to three times as much water or more as. Up to is supposed to set an upper limit, so the presence of or more is nonsensical. Take it as a gift when these sorts of issues keep you from having to invest more time and energy into disproving anything. We already know the answer must be (C). But consider the comparison:
the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water as previously thought
Well, who was doing the thinking in the latter part of the comparison? Presumably, the scientists mentioned earlier in the sentence. (Not the same scientists, perhaps, but scientists in general.) Are there reasonable interpretations for the missing information? Test:
1) the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water as was previously thought
2) the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water as scientists previously thought
If you straighten out the passive construct of the first iteration, you will appreciate that it conveys the same information as the second (i.e. as was previously thought by scientists. Is the passive voice incorrect on the GMATTM? No. (See this question on starfish if you need proof. Pay attention to the arm in particular.) Since either interpretation passes our litmus test, we can safely get behind (C) and put the question behind us.
There you have it. These were just a few comparisons that incorporated an as _____ as structure, but we can study and learn from them. Most importantly, trust your process and the context of the sentence at hand, not some hard-and-fast rule that you read in a forum or saw in a YouTube tutorial. First, what is the comparison? Second, if there are missing words, what reasonable interpretation can you supply? I would suggest you get rid of any options on grounds that you feel more confident assessing before you turn to anything else. When you work with just what is left, you start to see matters in a different light.
Good luck with your studies, everyone. I would like to thank GraceSCKao for raising queries on the above questions, as well as for being patient with me while I worked on giving this post the treatment I thought it deserved.
- Andrew
QUESTION ONE—LINK (source: GMAT Prep)
Quote:
First off, we can eliminate any answer choice that uses an improper as much... than construct. This is a common setup in comparison questions. If the sentence did not pump in so much additional information between as _____ and the latter part of the idiom, I doubt anyone would have trouble. But we are here to discuss what happens after the second as. You can see quite clearly that it appears in answer choices (B) and (D). Ask yourself the following questions whenever you encounter the word in this context:
- Is there a logical referent?
- If so, am I borrowing just the information I want to fit, or does a reasonable interpretation suggest that what I want to be there is, in fact, what belongs there?
Consider it above in as it was. Does it stand for energy, or, more specifically, energy generated through wind power? Rather than force an interpretation, examine both possibilities within the context of the comparison. I will remove the placement of the adverb now from consideration by replacing it with ellipses (...).
1) more than ten times as much energy is... generated through wind power... as energy was [generated] in 1990.
2) more than ten times as much energy is... generated through wind power... as energy was generated through wind power in 1990.
Neither comparison holds any real substance. In the first iteration, we can reasonably supply the missing verb generated, since energy was in 1990 makes no sense whatsoever, and was is a linking verb that is missing its action verb. (If you have trouble making the connection, picture a perfect tense instead: energy had in 1990. You would logically ask, Had what?) The problem, of course, is the word energy. The comparison is between the amount of energy generated at present compared to the amount generated in the past. Repeating the word energy introduces nothing more than a redundancy. Consider a simpler comparison using the same word: The generator stores more energy now than in the past. If you can find a way to squeeze in energy after than, then you have a keener eye than I.
Getting back to the sentence at hand, since energy is reintroduced in the second half of the comparison in both iterations above, we can drop both from consideration. Of course, there is a third interpretation that rectifies the issue:
3) more than ten times as much energy is... generated through wind power... as was generated in 1990.
This is a proper comparison, but notice that energy has fallen by the wayside. The logical implication is that it simply does not belong, whatever it may stand in for. Compare our corrected version of the sentence with answer choice (C):
(C) more than ten times as much energy is... generated through wind power... as was the case in 1990.
Can we reasonably summarize the process of how much energy was generated with the noun phrase the case? Sure. There are many such dummy phrases that could work here—the state of _____ comes to mind. The exact noun hardly matters, as long as it is clear that the comparison is between an amount at one point in time and an amount at another point in time. Most importantly, there are major flaws with (B) and (D), as discussed above, whereas (C) just sounds awkward.
QUESTION TWO—LINK (source: GMAT Prep)
Quote:
I told you that as _____ than comes up a lot in these comparison questions. Would it surprise you to learn that, as of this writing, this question is sitting at only 35 percent accuracy—meaning that roughly two-thirds of people miss it—after 9,672 attempts on this site? That is astounding to me, since 60 percent of the answer choices can be eliminated in seconds. The question comes down to whether those is warranted in answer choice (E). Again, ask yourself what the word could reasonably replace within the comparison. (Ignore the degree of the comparison in more than at the head.)
Comparison: three times as many independent institutions of higher education charge tuition and fees of under $8,000 a year as... over $16,000.
Pith of comparison (minus unnecessary modifiers/information): three times as many institutions charge under $8,000 a year as... over $16,000.
Answer choice (E): three times as many institutions charge under $8,000 a year as those charging over $16,000.
Interpretation: three times as many institutions charge under $8,000 a year as institutions charging over $16,000.
Why has the verb charge in the comparison morphed into a different form—the adjective modifier charging—later on? The comparison should be between what some institutions charge and what other institutions charge. Keep things simple, tit for tat. If answer choice (E) is an imposter, then only (D) remains. Test within our stripped-down shell of the comparison:
Answer choice (D): three times as many institutions charge under $8,000 a year as charge over $16,000.
Yes, that makes sense, little different from saying, As many people voted in the 2020 election as voted in 2016. For the second question in a row, we can observe that when the action has fallen after the comparison marker, as _____, the actions can be compared without the subject reentering the comparison.
QUESTION THREE—LINK (source: Official Guide)
Quote:
This sentence looks a little different from the others. What, exactly, is being compared? In keeping with our tenet to keep things simple, if you said people, you are correct. If you like to be more granular, the number of people is also accurate. The comparative marker is comma + about, and it applies to nearly eight million people that immediately precedes it. So, the comparison:
nearly eight million people, about _____ the nation's four-year colleges and universities
Now, since people are not the same as an enrollment, but rather comprise an enrollment (i.e. an enrollment of people), we can drop answer choices (A) and (D) from consideration. Notice that (B) and (C) both use those. Substitute people in each instance as a litmus test:
(B) nearly eight million people, about the equivalent of people enrolled in unis. (We need not worry about the "fluff.")
(C) nearly eight million people, about equal to people who are enrolled in unis.
In (B), what does the equivalent of people mean? Something like people, as in humanoids? We would certainly want to add number of to draw a proper comparison—nearly eight million people, about the equivalent number of people enrolled in unis—but from where would we draw such information in the sentence on the screen? (B) is in serious trouble now, since we cannot supply information just to fit what we want the sentence to say.
Answer choice (C) is little better: nearly eight million people [are] about equal to people? No. We need another amount to enter the picture. Compare to the only option that is left in (E):
(E) nearly eight million people, about as many as are enrolled in unis.
This people-to-people comparison works. Unlike what we have seen in the previous two questions, though, this one does not introduce a verb into the comparison ahead of the second element. Rather, elements X and Y themselves are being compared (not their actions). It would not be improper to write, nearly eight million people, about as many people as are enrolled in unis. This comparison is more overt—think of it as somewhat similar to an absolute phrase renaming a key noun from the main clause, versus another type of modifier that does not repeat that noun—but the lack of a subject after as _____ as in answer choice (E) does not work against it because there is only one reasonable interpretation for what is being compared, the number of people. No one would reasonably question, About as many what?
QUESTION FOUR—LINK (source: GMAT Prep)
Quote:
Before we get into this one, drop answer choices (A) and (D) for mixing comparisons: as much _____ than. (E) can enter the scrapheap for improperly delivering on more _____, which should be followed by than, not as. Again, we should be down to just two answer choices within maybe half a minute. So, what is being compared? Ignore the splits.
Full comparison: the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water... as... previously thought.
Pith of comparison: [the] crust harbors up to three times as much water... as... previously thought.
Luckily for us, answer choice (B) suffers from a fatal meaning issue: harbors up to three times as much water or more as. Up to is supposed to set an upper limit, so the presence of or more is nonsensical. Take it as a gift when these sorts of issues keep you from having to invest more time and energy into disproving anything. We already know the answer must be (C). But consider the comparison:
the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water as previously thought
Well, who was doing the thinking in the latter part of the comparison? Presumably, the scientists mentioned earlier in the sentence. (Not the same scientists, perhaps, but scientists in general.) Are there reasonable interpretations for the missing information? Test:
1) the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water as was previously thought
2) the planet's crust harbors up to three times as much water as scientists previously thought
If you straighten out the passive construct of the first iteration, you will appreciate that it conveys the same information as the second (i.e. as was previously thought by scientists. Is the passive voice incorrect on the GMATTM? No. (See this question on starfish if you need proof. Pay attention to the arm in particular.) Since either interpretation passes our litmus test, we can safely get behind (C) and put the question behind us.
There you have it. These were just a few comparisons that incorporated an as _____ as structure, but we can study and learn from them. Most importantly, trust your process and the context of the sentence at hand, not some hard-and-fast rule that you read in a forum or saw in a YouTube tutorial. First, what is the comparison? Second, if there are missing words, what reasonable interpretation can you supply? I would suggest you get rid of any options on grounds that you feel more confident assessing before you turn to anything else. When you work with just what is left, you start to see matters in a different light.
Good luck with your studies, everyone. I would like to thank GraceSCKao for raising queries on the above questions, as well as for being patient with me while I worked on giving this post the treatment I thought it deserved.
- Andrew
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.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
GraceSCKao
Joined: 02 Jul 2021
Last visit: 18 Dec 2022
Posts: 124
Given Kudos: 1,247
Location: Taiwan
Schools: Columbia CBS '24 Darden '24 LBS '24 Wharton '24
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
16 Apr 2022, 03:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
AndrewN
AndrewN
Thank you so much Andrew for this post!
I spent about 30 minutes reading this post--I presume that you spent much more time writing it. Appreciate your time, response and insights on these questions! The "As__As" structure is more clear to me because of your insights.
After reading your post, I begin to feel that there might be no one set of rules for ellipsis in English language. But it is always essential to think: what are the two items being compared in the context? And, if there is something missed in the second half, can we still get a reasonable interpretation or there is ambiguity in meaning? I think that thinking through these two questions is even harder than learning the rules, but this might be the crux of GMAT SC section--we just have to think about the meaning seriously.
Since "As_As" structure could be ever-changing, as shown by the variety of the four questions, the two fundamental approaches might be the best and most efficient way to solve the questions.
Thank you once again for this post! I plan to print it out so I can check it from time to time. I am sure that many test takers would benefit from this post too! And sorry for my late response--I had password issues these days.
16 Apr 2022, 09:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
GraceSCKao
I was happy to create the topic, GraceSCKao. Exploring such issues opens my own eyes to some of the very concepts I teach. You have summarized my post about as well as I can imagine. One more thought, from a post I wrote earlier today:
AndrewN
Thank you for taking the time to read my analysis above, GraceSCKao, and for being so respectful. The entire community benefits from your contributions.
- Andrew
, but I hope to learn and have a better understanding from those comparisons. Thanks again for your help. 
