GMAT Club Forum
https://gmatclub.com:443/forum/

The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart
https://gmatclub.com/forum/the-guiding-principles-of-the-tax-plan-released-by-the-treasury-depart-76551.html
Page 1 of 2

Author:  batliwala [ 08 Apr 2004, 02:35 ]
Post subject:  The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have even a greater significance for the economy than the particulars of the plan.

(A) even a greater significance for the economy than
(B) a significance that is even greater for the economy than
(C) even greater significance for the economy than have
(D) even greater significance for the economy than do
(E) a significance even greater for the economy than have

Author:  DmitryFarber [ 14 Jan 2012, 13:57 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

Good work, folks! It seems that people are (correctly) aligned on D now, but I was asked to comment, so here's my take:

I think what makes this problem confusing is that the words "have" and "do" have so many possible roles in a sentence. Let's clarify things with an example:

I like pie more than my brothers.

What does this sentence mean? Do I prefer pie to my brothers, or do I enjoy eating pie more than my brothers do?

Now, we could clear up this ambiguity by saying “I like pie more than my brothers like pie.” This wouldn’t be grammatically incorrect, but there’s a shorter, more stylish, and more GMAT-like way to say this:

I like pie more than my brothers do.

Here, the word “do” stands in for the idea “like pie.”

Now, what about the following?

I have more love for pies than my brothers do.

Here, we are still using “do” to stand in for the preceding verb phrase: in this case, “have love for pies.” (We can substitute the verb phrase without including the comparative word “more.”) We don’t want to use the word “have”—it would not sound great to say “I have more love for pies than my brothers have.”

So we can already see how the word “do” can stand in for the word “have.” This is NOT the case if “have” is used to indicate the present perfect, as in the following:

I have been going to the gym lately.

Now, if I want to compare myself to my brothers, I will need to use the present perfect for both my verb and theirs. I do this by saying “have” twice.

I have been going to the gym more than my brothers have.

The second “have” (at the end of the sentence) functions just like “do” in the present tense does. It stands for the verb phrase “have been going to the gym.”

As a side note, I should point out that the GMAT often places the second verb BEFORE its subject, like this:

I have more pies than do my brothers.
I have been going to the gym more often than have my brothers.


This is fine, and entails no change in meaning.

Now, back to the original sentence. Here, “have” is NOT being used to indicate present perfect. It is part of the phrase “could have . . . significance.” So let’s write a simple sentence to parallel this one:

I might have more of an impact on the election than do my brothers.

If, instead, I say “I might have more of an impact on the election than have my brothers,” it sounds like I am speaking about them in the present perfect. I’d be saying that I might have more of an impact (in the future) than my brothers have had (so far). That’s the same mistake we’d be making if we chose C or E on this problem. We don't want to say that the principles could (in the future) have more significance than the particulars have (up to now).

Hopefully now, those with concerns can see why D works. The word “do” is actually filling in for the verb phrase “have significance.”

By the way, we need “do”--rather than nothing--to avoid ambiguity. A & B pose this problem in different ways.

B: “The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have a significance that is even greater for the economy than the particulars of the plan.” There are a few ways to read this sentence (and that's the problem), but to me it seems like we’re saying that the significance of the principles could be better for the economy than the particulars are. We should be saying that the principles are more significant (or “greater in significance”) than the particulars.

In A, we have two problems. First, the word order is wrong—“could have even a greater” just doesn’t work, because “even” seems to be modifying the verb “have” instead of the adjective “greater,” as it should. Second, without our helper “do,” we still have some ambiguity. A could be read as “The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have an even greater significance for the economy than FOR the particulars of the plan.” In other words, without a clarifying word (either the “for” that I just added, or the “do” that we add in D), we aren’t sure which interpretation to go with.

I hope this helps! Let me know if I can clarify anything.

Author:  vineetgupta [ 14 Aug 2007, 10:13 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

D it is.
This is the explanation given in the SC tips by anandnk:

The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have even a greater significance for the economy than the particulars of the plan.

(A) even a greater significance for the economy than
(B) a significance that is even greater for the economy than
(C) even greater significance for the economy than have
(D) even greater significance for the economy than do
(E) a significance even greater for the economy than have

D is indeed best in SAE.

In SAE, we generally use do to replace regular verbs, i.e., verbs that are not linking verbs, verbs that use modals, etc.

For example:

Megumi speaks Japanese better than I do.

But you already knew that, I'm sure.

Look at the following examples for something (perhaps) new:

Megumi has visited more countries than I have.

We can use have again because have is an auxiliary verb here.

Megumi has more skirts than I do.

Here, has is NOT an auxiliary verb, and in SAE, we cannot use the verb have in the second bit.

Author:  stolyar [ 23 Jun 2004, 21:48 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

The proper comparison would be:

The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department COULD have even a greater significance for the economy than COULD the particulars of the plan.

I think C and D distort the picture.
A says that the Treasury Department could have the particulars of the plan. Wrong again.

Finally, I opt for D.

Author:  Paul [ 24 Jun 2004, 05:32 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

I also opt for D
"do" is necessary here to compare same actions

could have<< even greater significance for the economy than do >> the particulars of the plan

equivalent to:

could have even greater significance for the economy than the particulars of the plan do [have]
"have" is ellipsed here and "do" ensures that we are not comparing "economy" to "the particulars of the plan".
"do" properly compares
the "significance" of the "guiding principles of the tax plan"
to
the "significance" of the "particulars of the plan"

Let's see how this fits D

The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have even greater significance for the economy than do the particulars of the plan

Author:  TommyWallach [ 10 May 2010, 17:13 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

Hey All,

The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have even a greater significance for the economy than the particulars of the plan.

(A) even a greater significance for the economy than
PROBLEM: Idiomatically, we can only put the word "even" before a word without an article, not the other way around. I can say "an even better mousetrap", but I can't say "even a better mousetrap".

(B) a significance that is even greater for the economy than
PROBLEM: This is a comparison question, so we need to work out the two things we want to compare. In this case it's "the guiding principles" (having a greater significance) than "the particulars". The problem is that without the "do" we get in D, there are two possible readings of this sentence. Either the significance of the principles is greater than for the economy than the particulars are greater for the economy (the meaning we want), or the significance of the principles is greater for the economy than the particulars (of something...in general).

It's a long version of "I play with Dave better than John." In that sentence, it could be that I play better with Dave than I do with John, or that I play with Dave better than John plays with Dave. Whenever there are two possible readings, you need to add something to clarify.

(C) even greater significance for the economy than have
PROBLEM: A weird parallel thing happens here. The first "have" is part of a conditional ("With more money, I could have everything I want."). But this second have sounds like the past perfect tense ("Those principles have had a lot of significance"). This represents a change in tense that we don't want.

(D) even greater significance for the economy than do
ANSWER: Gets the comparison right (adding the word "do").

(E) a significance even greater for the economy than have
PROBLEM: Comparison is wrong here. Sounds like greater for the economy than for something else. Also, the "have" is still wrong.

Hope that helps!

-tommy

Author:  ykaiim [ 14 May 2010, 07:37 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

Check this link on Helping Verbs.
https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verb ... elping.htm

do
to make negatives (I do not like you.)
to ask questions (Do you want some coffee?)
to show emphasis (I do want you to pass your exam.)
to stand for a main verb in some constructions (He speaks faster than she does.)

Author:  daagh [ 24 Mar 2011, 01:21 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

The essential point is to note that the comparison is between two actions of what the 'guiding principles' of the plan have for the economy and what the particulars have. We must maintain the parallelism of action in both arms of the comparison.

Hence choices A and B, which compare ‘the action of the principles’ with just ‘the particulars’ are required to be ignored.

Secondly while ‘have’ and ‘do’ both indicate actions as in C, D and E, the verb ‘do’ is preferable over ‘have’ in the second arm for the sake of avoiding repetition. D thus remains the best.

Author:  daagh [ 16 Jun 2012, 09:29 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

A test of parallel comparison

(A) even a greater significance for the economy than--- the second arm namely the particulars should be verbed to match the verb on the first arm

(B) a significance that is even greater for the economy than--- same error as in A

(C) even greater significance for the economy than have – the fronting of the verb before the verb have leaves the sentence din a muddle, changing the meaning. What it actually may mean is that the guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have even a greater significance for the economy than the guiding principles have the particulars of the plan, thus nudging the particulars to a position of object from the subject. Therefore the need for differential verb rather than the repetition of have

(D) Even greater significance for the economy than do –good choice

(E) a significance even greater for the economy than have --- The changed word order renders the modifier adjective greater without a modified noun immediately after it, while repeating the verb error as seen in C

Author:  daagh [ 19 Dec 2012, 07:36 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

(A) even a greater significance for the economy than --- The comparison is between what principles could have with what the particulars could have; The chocie wrongly compares what the principles could have with the particular themselves – wrong; we must have an action verb for the second part too.

(B) a significance that is even greater for the economy than --- same as in A


(C) even greater significance for the economy than have --- Of course, this has a verb for the second part, but the verb have is inferior to - do -


(D) even greater significance for the economy than do --- better choice than –have—hence preferable,

(E) a significance even greater for the economy than have ----- ‘A significance’ is problematic, significance is a non countable noun. When we say –a significance, it renders the meaning that significance is countable as one significance, two significances etc. Hence wron

Author:  doe007 [ 12 May 2013, 03:12 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

In this type of questions, meaning of the sentence plays a crucial role.

In this question, first we need to find which parts are compared:
Is the comparison between “guiding principles of the tax plan” and “particulars of the plan”
OR
Is the comparison between “significance of guiding principles on the economy” and “significance of particulars on the economy”?

After judging the meaning, it can be seen that the comparison should be between “significance of guiding principles on the economy” and “significance of particulars on the economy”.

To make the comparison proper, we need have the construction as “… economy than do the particulars of the plan.”
Point to note: “have” in non-underlined part is not used as present perfect. So, if “do” is replaced by “have”, the sentence will have distorted meaning.

A) “Significance for the economy” is compared to “particulars of the plan”. Incorrect option.
B) “Significance” is compared to “particulars of the plan”. Also, “significance” is non-countable and hence “a significance” in ungrammatical. Incorrect option.
C) Introduction of second “have” is distorting the meaning. The construction “X could have greater Y than have Z” is grammatically incorrect and it does not convey the desired comparison. Incorrect option.
D) Correct. Here then sentence is meaningful and contains right comparison.
E) Introduction of second “have” is distorting the meaning. The construction “X could have Y greater than have Z” is grammatically incorrect and it does not convey the desired comparison. Also, “significance” is non-countable and hence “a significance” in ungrammatical. Incorrect option.

Correct option is D.

Author:  Pasharma1 [ 01 Mar 2019, 00:28 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

A and B compare ‘the action of the principles’ to ‘the particulars’ so they can be ignored.

E is much too awkward to bother with.



Out of the remaining two, D is the better option, as ‘do’ is the better verb to employ here.

Author:  09173140521 [ 24 Aug 2019, 00:21 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

""The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have even a greater significance for the economy than the particulars of the plan.""
(A) even a greater significance for the economy than
(D) even greater significance for the economy than do

what is the function of "a" article in answer A ? is it correct or incorrect if WE use in this case ?

Author:  DmitryFarber [ 28 Aug 2019, 23:20 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

09173140521 We don't want to say "have even a greater," because the intervening article prevents "even" from modifying "greater." We just don't do word order that way. We could say "an even greater significance."

mdmurad We don't want to use parallel instances of "could," because this implies we are comparing ability or potential: X is able to do more than Y. What the sentence is trying to say is that it is possible that X will be more significant than Y. "Could" is used to indicate a possibility. It could be that this will happen. But we're not saying that the former definitely has more room to be significant than the latter does.

Author:  ChiranjeevSingh [ 31 Oct 2020, 00:14 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

Here's the official explanation provided by the GMAC for this question:

The sentence uses the conditional verb could, the adverb even, and the comparative structure greater than to express the idea that the significance of one thing might be greater than the significance of another. The sentence should be structured in a way that makes the scope of each of these expressions clear.

Option A: This structure does not clearly indicate whether (1) the principles’ significance for the economy could be greater than that of the particulars of the plan or (2) the principles’ significance for the economy could be greater than for the particulars of the plan. The position of the article a between even and greater makes it unclear whether the adverb even is supposed to modify greater or have.

Option B: This wording is awkward and indirect. Also, the structure, like that of answer choice A, does not clearly indicate whether (1) the principles’ significance for the economy could be greater than that of the particulars of the plan or (2) the principles’ significance for the economy could be greater than for the particulars of the plan.

Option C: This differs from answer choice D only in that this repeats the verb have instead of using the generic placeholder verb do. The inverted verb-subject structure is more natural and more commonly used with do + subject than with have + subject, so than have could appear odd or nonstandard to some readers. Also, than have the particulars of the plan could readily appear to be elliptical for than the particulars of the plan have had, but since the perfect tense is not parallel with, or suggested by, the earlier part of the sentence, the second occurrence of have appears to be dangling.

Option D: Correct. This is structured so that the relationships among concepts and the scope of the modifiers are clear. This uses the inverted structure than do the particulars of the plan to concisely clarify that the writer intends to contrast the principles’ potential significance for the economy with the particulars’ significance for the economy.

Option E: This wording is awkward and indirect, and also suffers from the same problems as the wording in answer choice C.

The correct answer is D.

Please note that I'm not the author of this explanation. I'm just posting it here since I believe it can help the community.

Author:  aygulismayilova [ 01 Nov 2020, 00:53 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

Please clarify the issue related to the article "a". I immediately eliminated answer choices which do not have an article before significance.

Thanks in advance

Author:  EducationAisle [ 01 Nov 2020, 05:54 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

aygulismayilova wrote:
Please clarify the issue related to the article "a". I immediately eliminated answer choices which do not have an article before significance.

Thanks in advance

GMAT does not test on articles (a/an/the). So, if you are using articles to eliminate answer choices, you are focusing on the wrong split.

Author:  mSKR [ 25 Jul 2021, 21:40 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

Hi CrackVerbalGMAT mcelroytutoring DmitryFarber EducationAisle

Quote:
The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have even a greater significance for the economy than the particulars of the plan.

(A) even a greater significance for the economy than
(B) a significance that is even greater for the economy than
(C) even greater significance for the economy than have
(D) even greater significance for the economy than do
(E) a significance even greater for the economy than have


(C) The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have even greater significance for the economy than the particulars of the plan[/color] have for the economy
(D) The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have (D) even greater significance for the economy than the particulars of the plan [color=#0000ff]could have (DO)
for the economy

Is my C and D understanding correct with the complete sentence?
C distorts the meaning. hence D is correct?

please confirm

Author:  DmitryFarber [ 30 Jul 2021, 11:55 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

mSKR

I can't quite see what you are saying about C. The trouble with C is that it creates a tense shift: the first part is about what the principles MAY DO in the future, while the second is about what the particulars HAVE ALREADY done. D fixes that by using "do" to refer back to "have an impact," as I discuss at greater length in my post above.

Author:  sssanskaar [ 30 Jul 2021, 19:15 ]
Post subject:  Re: The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Depart

mSKR wrote:
Hi CrackVerbalGMAT mcelroytutoring DmitryFarber EducationAisle

Quote:
The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have even a greater significance for the economy than the particulars of the plan.

(A) even a greater significance for the economy than
(B) a significance that is even greater for the economy than
(C) even greater significance for the economy than have
(D) even greater significance for the economy than do
(E) a significance even greater for the economy than have


(C) The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have even greater significance for the economy than the particulars of the plan[/color] have for the economy
(D) The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have (D) even greater significance for the economy than the particulars of the plan [color=#0000ff]could have (DO)
for the economy

Is my C and D understanding correct with the complete sentence?
C distorts the meaning. hence D is correct?

please confirm


Dear friend mSKR,

The problem with option C is that it can be interpreted in two ways:

1. The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have even a greater significance for the economy than [the guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could] have the particulars of the plan.

This makes no sense.

2. The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have even a greater significance for the economy than [the significance of the economy that] the particulars of the plan have.

This is our intended meaning. But because of the ambiguity mentioned above, this is not a good choice. And that's where option D shines:

The guiding principles of the tax plan released by the Treasury Department could have even a greater significance for the economy than [the significance of the economy that] the particulars of the plan do [have].

:)

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 8 hours
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/