Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 03:43 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 03:43
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   
555-605 Level|   Comparisons|   Grammatical/Rhetorical Construction|                              
avatar
phemiaYu
avatar
Joined: 21 Jan 2016
Last visit: 02 Mar 2016
Posts: 3
Own Kudos:
3
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 3
Kudos: 3
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 22 Feb 2016, 02:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry
phemiaYu
Hi can some one please explain the ellipsis of the same...as? I just got more confused after reading those posts...
(A) The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants.
(B) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as it costs to run other types of power plants.
Also, why is the sentence "the incidence of the disease among men exceeds among women" ambiguious? Some one explained it in the post but I still dont get it. Thanks~
Dear phemiaYu,
I'm happy to respond. :-) I think one of thing that is potentially confusing is the fact that common words have been dropped in the second branch of the parallelism. See this blog article:
Dropping Common Words in Parallel

Let's start with your two sentences
(1a) The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants. = wordy but OK
(1b) The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as that of running other types of power plants. = not much better
Because of the phrasing, it's not immediately obvious how to omit repeated words to shorten this more without introducing ambiguity or awkwardness. This is not a structure that lends itself to elegant revisions.

(2a) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as it costs to run other types of power plants. = correct but too wordy
(2b) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as to run other types of power plants. = better, with the common words "to run" dropped in the second branch.
(2c) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants. = even more elegant: this is what the GMAT loves!

Now, look at the structure in the OA:
(3a) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants ..." = that's the full version. That's grammatically correct but a rhetorical disaster! It reeks of redundancy! We need to drop some of the repeated words.
(3b) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as that of running other types of power plants ..." = only slightly better
(3b) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants ..." = an elegant gem! Again, this is what the GMAT loves, and this is the version in the OA.

The very hard thing about this is that when we look at parallelism of a complex structure, it is up to us, the readers, to infer which repeated elements from the first branch have been omitted in the second branch. We get (2c) or (3c) printed on the page and we have to understand that everything in (2a) or (3a) is implicit in that.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
Show more

That's very kind of you. Thank you. But I still have this question.
[1] The incidence of this disease among men exceeds that among women.
[2] The incidence of this disease among men exceeds among women.
I can tell that the first version is correct, but someone said in the posts that the second one is ambiguous. What do you think about it? Is there any grammatic problem in the second version?
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
30,534
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,534
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 22 Feb 2016, 12:10
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
phemiaYu
That's very kind of you. Thank you. But I still have this question.
[1] The incidence of this disease among men exceeds that among women.
[2] The incidence of this disease among men exceeds among women.
I can tell that the first version is correct, but someone said in the posts that the second one is ambiguous. What do you think about it? Is there any grammatic problem in the second version?
Show more
Dear phemiaYu,
I'm happy to respond. :-)

There is a very subtle rhetorical issue here. We can drop common words in the second branch of the parallelism, but if we drop too much, the sentence becomes awkward.

Sentence [1] is perfectly fine, perfectly correct: it has a rigorously clear meaning. Sentence [2] is awkward: it no longer effectively conveys the same information that Sentence [1] conveys, and it is unclear exactly what it is trying to say. It is not clear whether it is grammar problem or a logic problem or a rhetoric problem, but it is a disaster.

I guess I would say that, in Sentence [2], the speaker is clearly trying to make some comparison, but exactly what comparison the speaker intends in unclear. Sentence [2] is awkward and illogical and unclear enough that it is not the correct way to phrase any conceivable comparison.

Does this make sense?
Mike :-)
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
30,534
 [1]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,534
 [1]
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 23 Feb 2016, 11:25
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sukanyar
Slightly confusing. In the answer we have "for" other types of power plants, but there is no "for" on the right hand side at all (in your 3a and 3b versions). So, how is "of' changing to "for".
Show more
sananoor
you have put a very good question, now just ask ur self what is right
the cost of X is same as it is FOR others (we arn't comparing cost of X to cost of others, we are trying to say that cost of running something is same as it is for other plants)
the cost of X is same as it is OF others--wrong
Show more
Dear sukanyar,
I'm happy to respond. :-) On behalf of the English Language, I apologize. Grammar is not mathematics. Grammar is not mathematics. There are patterns, to be sure, but none of the patterns of grammar are as rigorously clean and logical as the patterns of mathematics. If you approach GMAT grammar looking for the precise rules to follow, the English language will endlessly frustrate you.

There is absolutely no way to get to GMAT SC mastery by assembling some ideal set of grammar rules. You have to read. You have to develop an ear for the living language in all its idiosyncrasy. See this blog article:
How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
30,534
 [4]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,534
 [4]
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 25 Feb 2016, 11:24
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
baaniNitin
. While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants, it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes it more expensive for them to generate electricity.

Could someone please tell me what it refers to in A ? is it power plants or costs ? i know its comparison issues . please explain for my understanding
Show more
Dear baaniNitin,
I'm happy to respond. :-)

This is a very tricky grammatical issue. It is called the "empty it." Here's a blog explaining it in detail:
The Empty ‘It’ on the GMAT Sentence Correction

Of course, there are two it's in the sentence, but both are empty. Here's a simpler example.
It is better to give than to receive.
Technically, the antecedent of the word "it" is the infinitive "to give" that comes after it. The empty "it" is used when a subject or clause is the subject and it would be awkward to put the subject before the verb. For example, this sentence is very awkward:
"To give is better than to receive."
It's grammatically correct but it sounds awful. The empty "it" makes it much more eloquent. Similarly,
"To run nuclear plants costs about the same as for other types of power plants ..."
That sounds atrocious. The empty "it" makes this construction much more natural sounding.
"It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants ..."
Technically, the antecedent of the "it" is the infinitive phrase "to run nuclear plants." Technically, that is the subject of this clause.

The second empty "it" employs a particular structure that creates rhetorical emphasis. It is used to create a kind of contrast, especially when the contrasting element may defy common expectations. Consider this sentence.
People think Edison invented the light bulb, but James Lindsay created the first.
That sentence is grammatically correct. Rhetorically, it is so-so: yes, there's the contrast word "but," but it's a mealy-mouthed wet-noodle contrast. It doesn't pack any punch. Here's a revision:
People think Edison invented the light bulb, but it was James Lindsay who created the first.
That is much more rhetorically effective: it creates a great deal of emphasis on the contrast. Grammatically, the antecedent of the empty "it" is "James Linsday," whose name comes after the verb. The antecedent of the empty "it," the real subject, is always after the verb.
Consider this sentence
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants, the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants make it more expensive for them to generate electricity.
Grammatically correct, but YAWN! Not all that exciting. By contrast
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants, it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes it more expensive for them to generate electricity.
That creates more emphasis, and highlights something that might contradict our expectations about the situation. That is a very effective sentence rhetorically.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
30,534
 [1]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,534
 [1]
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 10 May 2016, 10:52
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
NoHalfMeasures
I am still not sure how choice B uses correct parallelism/comparison. It compares: cost of something with cost for something. If we were to write the complete sentence with omitting any words, we would write "While the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants,..." and not write "While the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost for running other types of power plants,..."

Does that make sense? Can experts help pls?
Show more
Dear NoHalfMeasures,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, I think you need to deepen your understanding of what parallelism is. Parallelism is a pattern of logical correspondence that is reflected in the grammar. Folks fixate on the grammatical aspects of parallelism and lose sight of the logical and rhetorical aspects. A typical mistake along these lines is to conceive of parallelism incorrectly as requiring a kind of military lockstep conformity. The sophisticated use of parallelism does not require the exact same details at all levels: it simply requires enough to convey the logical correspondence and no more. The GMAT loves to present sophisticated parallelism as in the OA of this problem, because it presents a challenge to all who hold to the more simplistic "lockstep" picture of parallelism.

Here's (B):
While the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants, the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants make the electricity they generate more expensive.

Once again, the GMAT absolutely loves this sort of structure. This is a very sophisticated use of parallelism, and the grammatical beancounters who want exact matches in prepositions in all cases will be frustrated. The simple phrase "as for other types of power plants" elegantly conveys the logical relationship flawlessly, without any ambiguity. It perfectly establishes the logical correspondence between nuclear plants and other types of power plants, and it established this with an economy of expression. For those who really understand what parallelism is, this is a masterpiece, a logical and rhetorical success. For folks stuck at the level of grammar alone, ignoring the logic and rhetoric, this looks like it doesn't able the rigid lockstep rules. Such a person clinging to this rule is left holding only an empty husk, because the meaning has eluded his grasp. I would strongly urge you to take your understanding of parallelism to the next level.

Here's another question that explores a similar issue:
The FDA enacted

It is a mistake to think that GMAT SC is only about grammar. In fact, grammar, logic, and rhetoric are all equally important. Mastery of SC comes from having an integrated understanding of the interaction of those three.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
User avatar
NoHalfMeasures
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 29 Oct 2013
Last visit: 11 Jul 2023
Posts: 220
Own Kudos:
2,479
Given Kudos: 204
Concentration: Finance
GPA: 3.7
WE:Corporate Finance (Retail Banking)
Posts: 220
Kudos: 2,479
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 10 May 2016, 13:09
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thanks for your reply Mike. And sorry to make you write such a long post on parallelism while I didn't intend to ask you about that. What I meant was 'for other types of power plants' should stand for 'costs for other types of power plants' and until this point I thought 'cost for' was idiomatically wrong. Ive always thought that the correct preposition to go with 'cost' was 'of' or 'to'. For instance-

1. cost of acquiring - right
2. cost to acquire - right
3. cost for acquiring - wrong

But now I see on very few rare occasions that 'cost for' is also used although 'cost of' is far far more prevalent. In fact not even a single example uses cost+for here -->https://sentence.yourdictionary.com/cost. Until now whenever I heard someone say cost+for I always felt they(singular they) were making a dialectal error.

Is 'cost+for' a recent (a few decades old) addition to the grammar books or has it existed for centuries in formal writing? Do you know good resources where I can find etymology of 'cost+for' and not just 'cost'? or https://english.stackexchange.com/ is the way to go?
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
30,534
 [2]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,534
 [2]
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 11 May 2016, 10:14
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
NoHalfMeasures
Thanks for your reply Mike. And sorry to make you write such a long post on parallelism while I didn't intend to ask you about that. What I meant was 'for other types of power plants' should stand for 'costs for other types of power plants' and until this point I thought 'cost for' was idiomatically wrong. Ive always thought that the correct preposition to go with 'cost' was 'of' or 'to'. For instance-

1. cost of acquiring - right
2. cost to acquire - right
3. cost for acquiring - wrong

But now I see on very few rare occasions that 'cost for' is also used although 'cost of' is far far more prevalent. In fact not even a single example uses cost+for here -->https://sentence.yourdictionary.com/cost. Until now whenever I heard someone say cost+for I always felt they(singular they) were making a dialectal error.

Is 'cost+for' a recent (a few decades old) addition to the grammar books or has it existed for centuries in formal writing? Do you know good resources where I can find etymology of 'cost+for' and not just 'cost'? or https://english.stackexchange.com/ is the way to go?
Show more
Dear NoHalfMeasures,
I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, with all due respect, you are entirely misconceptualizing the situation. Here's (B) again:
While the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants, the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants make the electricity they generate more expensive.
You are misunderstanding the role of the word "for."

It is NOT a new idiom for the word "cost." As you said, the principle idiom is "cost of X," where X is the item whose value is assessed. The "to" would arise in attaching an infinitive of purpose to the noun "cost." The "for" could arise if we were talking about a specific group of purchases.
The movie costs $15 for adults, but the cost for senior citizens is less.
That's what might be happening with idioms, but the "for" in sentence (B) is not an idiom with a particular word.

The use of "for" in this sentence has the connotation "for the case of." It's a rhetorical way to introduce a different logical focus. Consider this sentence.
My friend thinks baseball is boring, but for me it's the most engaging sports game.
In that sentence, the word "for" indicates a shift from my friend's perspective to my perspective. More generally, it is a formal way to indicate a shift in rhetorical focus. That's what the word "for" is doing in sentence (B). It has nothing to do with idioms.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
User avatar
HKD1710
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 22 Jun 2014
Last visit: 26 Feb 2021
Posts: 961
Own Kudos:
4,517
Given Kudos: 182
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
Schools: IIMB IIMA ISB PGP Pro '19
GMAT 1: 540 Q45 V20
GPA: 2.49
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Schools: IIMB IIMA ISB PGP Pro '19
GMAT 1: 540 Q45 V20
Posts: 961
Kudos: 4,517
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 15 May 2016, 14:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
macjas
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants, it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes it more expensive for them to generate electricity.
Show more

A. While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants, it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes it more expensive for them to generate electricity.
Error-1: cost is compared with other types of power plants
Error-2: it is the fixed cost.....that makes it... (Empty it).

B While the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants, the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants make the electricity they generate more expensive.
running is ellipsed here. "cost of running....is about the same as for (running) other types of power plants,....
no ambiguity for they as well.

C. Even though it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants, it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes the electricity they generate more expensive.
Error-1:ellipsis error. "Cost about the same to run nuclear plants as for (running) other types of power plants,..." running is not parallel to run. and "for run" will be wrong anyway.
Error-2: makes is wrong for the subject plants.
Error-3: Even though it costs about the same..... it is the fixed costs... (Empty it).

D. It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants, whereas the electricity they generate is more expensive, stemming from the fixed costs of building nuclear plants.
Error-1: Same as error-1 in choice "C"
Error-2: they is ambiguous.

E. The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as other types of power plants, but the electricity they generate is made more expensive because of the fixed costs stemming from building nuclear plants.
Error-1: cost is compared with other types of power plants
Error-2: they is ambiguous.
Error-3: "is made " this passive construction is wrong.
avatar
pranav6082
avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2015
Last visit: 13 Dec 2017
Posts: 28
Own Kudos:
4
Given Kudos: 37
Location: India
Schools: ISB '18 (D)
GMAT 1: 630 Q48 V28
GRE 1: Q165 V159
GPA: 3.1
Schools: ISB '18 (D)
GMAT 1: 630 Q48 V28
GRE 1: Q165 V159
Posts: 28
Kudos: 4
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 24 Jun 2016, 00:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
HKD1710
macjas
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants, it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes it more expensive for them to generate electricity.

A. While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants, it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes it more expensive for them to generate electricity.
Error-1: cost is compared with other types of power plants
Error-2: it is the fixed cost.....that makes it... (Empty it).

B While the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants, the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants make the electricity they generate more expensive.
running is ellipsed here. "cost of running....is about the same as for (running) other types of power plants,....
no ambiguity for they as well.

C. Even though it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants, it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes the electricity they generate more expensive.
Error-1:ellipsis error. "Cost about the same to run nuclear plants as for (running) other types of power plants,..." running is not parallel to run. and "for run" will be wrong anyway.
Error-2: makes is wrong for the subject plants.
Error-3: Even though it costs about the same..... it is the fixed costs... (Empty it).

D. It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants, whereas the electricity they generate is more expensive, stemming from the fixed costs of building nuclear plants.
Error-1: Same as error-1 in choice "C"
Error-2: they is ambiguous.

E. The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as other types of power plants, but the electricity they generate is made more expensive because of the fixed costs stemming from building nuclear plants.
Error-1: cost is compared with other types of power plants
Error-2: they is ambiguous.
Error-3: "is made " this passive construction is wrong.
Show more

Hi HKD1710,

Why is The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as " the cost of running " other types of power plants
an incorrect comparison?

Isn't "the cost of running" implied in the second clause.

Same with While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as " it costs " other types of power plants

Please explain. This is killing lot of my questions :(
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
30,534
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,534
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 24 Jun 2016, 12:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
pranav6082
Hi HKD1710,

Why is The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as " the cost of running " other types of power plants
an incorrect comparison?

Isn't "the cost of running" implied in the second clause.

Same with While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as " it costs " other types of power plants

Please explain. This is killing lot of my questions :(
Show more
Dear pranav6082,
I'm happy to respond. :-)

Many students mistakenly believe that the GMAT SC is purely a test of grammar. In fact, grammar & logic & rhetoric are three important criteria, and many many answer choices are wrong even though they are 100% grammatically correct because they have logical or rhetorical challenges.

With this in mind, think about these two versions:
1) The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants . . .
2) The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as that of other types of power plants . . .
Both are 100% grammatically correct. Both are 100% logically correct. Version #2 is rhetorically much better than version #1. Rhetorically, #1 is quite awkward: if someone were to speak or write like this, it would incline fast thinking people not to be impressed with this person. That makes #1 "wrong," despite the fact that it is grammatically & logically correct.

I think you might be having trouble with this issue:
Dropping Common Words in Parallel on the GMAT

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
avatar
pranav6082
avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2015
Last visit: 13 Dec 2017
Posts: 28
Own Kudos:
4
Given Kudos: 37
Location: India
Schools: ISB '18 (D)
GMAT 1: 630 Q48 V28
GRE 1: Q165 V159
GPA: 3.1
Schools: ISB '18 (D)
GMAT 1: 630 Q48 V28
GRE 1: Q165 V159
Posts: 28
Kudos: 4
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 26 Jun 2016, 20:05
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry
pranav6082
Hi HKD1710,

Why is The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as " the cost of running " other types of power plants
an incorrect comparison?

Isn't "the cost of running" implied in the second clause.

Same with While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as " it costs " other types of power plants

Please explain. This is killing lot of my questions :(
Dear pranav6082,
I'm happy to respond. :-)

Many students mistakenly believe that the GMAT SC is purely a test of grammar. In fact, grammar & logic & rhetoric are three important criteria, and many many answer choices are wrong even though they are 100% grammatically correct because they have logical or rhetorical challenges.

With this in mind, think about these two versions:
1) The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants . . .
2) The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as that of other types of power plants . . .
Both are 100% grammatically correct. Both are 100% logically correct. Version #2 is rhetorically much better than version #1. Rhetorically, #1 is quite awkward: if someone were to speak or write like this, it would incline fast thinking people not to be impressed with this person. That makes #1 "wrong," despite the fact that it is grammatically & logically correct.

I think you might be having trouble with this issue:
Dropping Common Words in Parallel on the GMAT

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
Show more

Hi Mike

Much thanks for the response.

Going by the logic that we can drop common words, i am wondering why "The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as other types of power plants . . ." is incorrect. (drop off "that of" as "the cost of running" is implied)
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
30,534
 [1]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,534
 [1]
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 27 Jun 2016, 11:19
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
pranav6082
Hi Mike

Much thanks for the response.

Going by the logic that we can drop common words, i am wondering why "The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as other types of power plants . . ." is incorrect. (drop off "that of" as "the cost of running" is implied)
Show more
Dear pranav6082,
I'm happy to respond. :-) The rule is that we are allowed to drop common words in the second branch of parallel structure as long as we don't introduce ambiguity.

Consider this structure that you suggested:
The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as other types of power plants . . .
This now is identical to the phrasing for an illogical comparison, comparing "cost" of one type of power plant to the "power plants" of other types. This is perfect phrasing for the illogical comparison, so we have to make clear that we actually understand comparisons by indicating some difference between this illogical version and what we want to say.

If we drop so many words that we can read the phrase in another way, even if this alternative reading is 100% illogical, then we have dropped too many words.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
User avatar
sayantanc2k
User avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Last visit: 09 Dec 2022
Posts: 2,393
Own Kudos:
15,523
 [1]
Given Kudos: 26
Location: Germany
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE:Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Expert
Expert reply
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
Posts: 2,393
Kudos: 15,523
 [1]
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 18 Sep 2016, 11:45
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
zoezhuyan
hard one
any one can explain the "for" in the choices. how to identify it is unnecessary,
Show more

In the above question, "it costs.... " construction does not require " for". On the other hand "the cost..." construction requires "for". The basic structures are:

It costs same to run XXX as it costs to run YYY. (no "for" required)
The cost for XXX is same as the cost for YYY. ("for" required).
User avatar
zoezhuyan
User avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Last visit: 11 Nov 2024
Posts: 418
Own Kudos:
94
Given Kudos: 147
Posts: 418
Kudos: 94
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 20 Sep 2016, 22:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sayantanc2k
zoezhuyan
hard one
any one can explain the "for" in the choices. how to identify it is unnecessary,

In the above question, "it costs.... " construction does not require " for". On the other hand "the cost..." construction requires "for". The basic structures are:

It costs same to run XXX as it costs to run YYY. (no "for" required)
The cost for XXX is same as the cost for YYY. ("for" required).
Show more

hi Sayantackc2k
the cost of running A is the same as (the cost) FOR B, not of ?

please clarify

thanks a lot
User avatar
sayantanc2k
User avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Last visit: 09 Dec 2022
Posts: 2,393
Own Kudos:
15,523
 [2]
Given Kudos: 26
Location: Germany
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE:Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Expert
Expert reply
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
Posts: 2,393
Kudos: 15,523
 [2]
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 21 Sep 2016, 09:16
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
zoezhuyan
sayantanc2k
zoezhuyan
hard one
any one can explain the "for" in the choices. how to identify it is unnecessary,

In the above question, "it costs.... " construction does not require " for". On the other hand "the cost..." construction requires "for". The basic structures are:

It costs same to run XXX as it costs to run YYY. (no "for" required)
The cost for XXX is same as the cost for YYY. ("for" required).

hi Sayantackc2k
the cost of running A is the same as (the cost) FOR B, not of ?

please clarify

thanks a lot
Show more

Yes, you have a point. Ideally the construction should have been:

The cost of running A is the same as the cost of running B.
Parallel elements:
Cost of running A
Cost of running B.

However,the construction in option B is not grammatically wrong either:

the cost of running A is the same as (the cost) for B.. (repeated part cost omitted)
Parallel elements:
Cost of running A
Cost for B.

In both cases the comparison is between costs. It is not mandatory to maintain parallelism for what follows "cost", i.e. the rest of the two parallel elements.
User avatar
zoezhuyan
User avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Last visit: 11 Nov 2024
Posts: 418
Own Kudos:
94
Given Kudos: 147
Posts: 418
Kudos: 94
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 21 Sep 2016, 22:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sayantanc2k


Yes, you have a point. Ideally the construction should have been:

The cost of running A is the same as the cost of running B.
Parallel elements:
Cost of running A
Cost of running B.

However,the construction in option B is not grammatically wrong either:

the cost of running A is the same as (the cost) for B.. (repeated part cost omitted)
Parallel elements:
Cost of running A
Cost for B.

In both cases the comparison is between costs. It is not mandatory to maintain parallelism for what follows "cost", i.e. the rest of the two parallel elements.
Show more

thanks so much.

cost of running A
is the same as
cost of running B
-- parallelism: cost (of doing ) & cost (of doing )

cost of running A
is the same as
cost of B
-- illogical because parallelism : cost (of doing) & cost of (thing)

cost of running A
is the same as
cost for B = cost of running B
--- parallelism: cost (of doing ) & cost (of doing )

my understanding is right?

thanks a lot
have a nice day

>_~
User avatar
sayantanc2k
User avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Last visit: 09 Dec 2022
Posts: 2,393
Own Kudos:
15,523
 [2]
Given Kudos: 26
Location: Germany
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE:Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Expert
Expert reply
Schools:
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
Posts: 2,393
Kudos: 15,523
 [2]
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 22 Sep 2016, 08:51
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
zoezhuyan
sayantanc2k


Yes, you have a point. Ideally the construction should have been:

The cost of running A is the same as the cost of running B.
Parallel elements:
Cost of running A
Cost of running B.

However,the construction in option B is not grammatically wrong either:

the cost of running A is the same as (the cost) for B.. (repeated part cost omitted)
Parallel elements:
Cost of running A
Cost for B.

In both cases the comparison is between costs. It is not mandatory to maintain parallelism for what follows "cost", i.e. the rest of the two parallel elements.

thanks so much.

cost of running A
is the same as
cost of running B
-- parallelism: cost (of doing ) & cost (of doing )

cost of running A
is the same as
cost of B
-- illogical because parallelism : cost (of doing) & cost of (thing)

cost of running A
is the same as
cost for B = cost of running B
--- parallelism: cost (of doing ) & cost (of doing )

my understanding is right?

thanks a lot
have a nice day

>_~
Show more

Let me elaborate a bit more clearly. As long as the comparison is between cost and cost , the sentence is grammatically correct. If the prepositional modifiers of cost are different, then the sentence cannot be said wrong. Nonetheless using similar modifiers is preferred.

All the three cases you have mentioned above is alright

cost (of doing) & cost of (thing): NOT illogical.
Cost of eating dinner at XYZ restaurant (say INR 1000) is less than the cost of this bicycle (say INR 5000)..... alright.
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
30,534
 [3]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,534
 [3]
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 22 Sep 2016, 11:02
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
zoezhuyan
thanks so much.

cost of running A
is the same as
cost of running B
-- parallelism: cost (of doing ) & cost (of doing )

cost of running A
is the same as
cost of B
-- illogical because parallelism : cost (of doing) & cost of (thing)

cost of running A
is the same as
cost for B = cost of running B
--- parallelism: cost (of doing ) & cost (of doing )

my understanding is right?

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~
Show more
Dear zoezhuyan,

I'm happy to respond. :-) I see that my intelligent colleague sayantanc2k already gave you a good response. I just want to add a little more.

Think about what parallelism is. Many students mistakenly believe that parallelism is a grammatical structure. It's not. It's a logical structure, a logical matching pattern, and the grammar simply mirrors the logic. In fact, the grammar has only to match enough to make the logic clear. Sometimes, additional matching creates a strong rhetorical effect, but there is absolutely no requirement that parallelism should involve lockstep precision between the two branches down to the last detail.

cost of X and the cost of Y
That's a very sensible pattern of matching: the parallel grammar makes clear the logic.

Now, suppose X is a noun and Y is a gerund phrase.
the cost of auto insurance and the cost of getting a speeding ticket
The real question is whether these are logically parallel? Are these two costs of the same category, the kind we would compare and contrast? Yes! A person in the real world might have make one payment for her auto insurance and another payment because she got a speeding ticket. These are logically similar, so the parallelism works. The fact that we have the matching "cost of" pair is enough to indicate the pattern of matching: that's all the grammatical matching we need. It doesn't matter at all that the X & Y are different parts of speech.

By contrast, we could have the same parts of speech, two nouns, and the parallelism could be complete nonsense:
I made dinner with the leftovers in the refrigerator and with my friend Chris.
Either "with" statement alone would be fine, but together they are a train wreck. The first "with" suggest the materials and the second one suggest accompaniment. These are NOT logically parallel at all, even though the grammar is the same.

On the GMAT SC, you can't afford to pay attention only to the grammar. Grammar and logic and rhetoric are three equally important strands.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
User avatar
zoezhuyan
User avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Last visit: 11 Nov 2024
Posts: 418
Own Kudos:
94
Given Kudos: 147
Posts: 418
Kudos: 94
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 22 Sep 2016, 23:10
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry

I'm happy to respond. :-) I see that my intelligent colleague sayantanc2k already gave you a good response. I just want to add a little more.

Think about what parallelism is. Many students mistakenly believe that parallelism is a grammatical structure. It's not. It's a logical structure, a logical matching pattern, and the grammar simply mirrors the logic. In fact, the grammar has only to match enough to make the logic clear. Sometimes, additional matching creates a strong rhetorical effect, but there is absolutely no requirement that parallelism should involve lockstep precision between the two branches down to the last detail.

cost of X and the cost of Y
That's a very sensible pattern of matching: the parallel grammar makes clear the logic.

Now, suppose X is a noun and Y is a gerund phrase.
the cost of auto insurance and the cost of getting a speeding ticket
The real question is whether these are logically parallel? Are these two costs of the same category, the kind we would compare and contrast? Yes! A person in the real world might have make one payment for her auto insurance and another payment because she got a speeding ticket. These are logically similar, so the parallelism works. The fact that we have the matching "cost of" pair is enough to indicate the pattern of matching: that's all the grammatical matching we need. It doesn't matter at all that the X & Y are different parts of speech.

By contrast, we could have the same parts of speech, two nouns, and the parallelism could be complete nonsense:
I made dinner with the leftovers in the refrigerator and with my friend Chris.
Either "with" statement alone would be fine, but together they are a train wreck. The first "with" suggest the materials and the second one suggest accompaniment. These are NOT logically parallel at all, even though the grammar is the same.

On the GMAT SC, you can't afford to pay attention only to the grammar. Grammar and logic and rhetoric are three equally important strands.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
Show more

thanks so much Mike
I am glad that I got your explanation, I like your courses on magoosh.

you are right, I pay more attention to grammar parallelism. because I am not native speaker, to understand the sentence is a little harder for me.

for this case, I am sunk in the prep "for",
but I am afraid I need your further explanation:

mikemcgarry

Let's start with your two sentences
(1a) The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants. = wordy but OK
(1b) The cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as that of running other types of power plants. = not much better
Because of the phrasing, it's not immediately obvious how to omit repeated words to shorten this more without introducing ambiguity or awkwardness. This is not a structure that lends itself to elegant revisions.

(2a) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as it costs to run other types of power plants. = correct but too wordy
(2b) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as to run other types of power plants. = better, with the common words "to run" dropped in the second branch.
(2c) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants. = even more elegant: this is what the GMAT loves!

Now, look at the structure in the OA:
(3a) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost of running other types of power plants ..." = that's the full version. That's grammatically correct but a rhetorical disaster! It reeks of redundancy! We need to drop some of the repeated words.
(3b) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as that of running other types of power plants ..." = only slightly better
(3b) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants ..." = an elegant gem! Again, this is what the GMAT loves, and this is the version in the OA.

The very hard thing about this is that when we look at parallelism of a complex structure, it is up to us, the readers, to infer which repeated elements from the first branch have been omitted in the second branch. We get (2c) or (3c) printed on the page and we have to understand that everything in (2a) or (3a) is implicit in that.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
Show more

after reading this thread, I got an idea that both 2c and 3c are correct.

mikemcgarry



(B) While the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as it is for other types of power plants
This is perfectly correct. A perfect comparison. This, of course, is the OA.

(C) Even though it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for it costs to run other types of power plants
This one has the same structure, but because what comes before is different, the structure is problematic here. The preposition "for" is not needed here. A different set of words would be implied.

(D) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for it costs to run other types of power plants
Same problem as (C).
after reading this thread,
both option C and D are incorrect, because "for" is unnecessary.
Show more

I have no idea about difference between 2C,3C and C,D,

would you please clarify for me ?

another question :
as you said:
mikemcgarry



(B) While the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as it is for other types of power plants
This is perfectly correct. A perfect comparison. This, of course, is the OA.

(C) Even though it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for it costs to run other types of power plants
This one has the same structure, but because what comes before is different, the structure is problematic here. The preposition "for" is not needed here. A different set of words would be implied.

(D) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for it costs to run other types of power plants
Same problem as (C).
Show more

why not

(C) Even though it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as it costs to runfor other types of power plants
(D) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as it costs to run forother types of power plants

waiting for your reply
have a nice day
>_~
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,479
Own Kudos:
30,534
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,479
Kudos: 30,534
While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of 23 Sep 2016, 13:48
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
zoezhuyan
thanks so much Mike
I am glad that I got your explanation, I like your courses on magoosh.

you are right, I pay more attention to grammar parallelism. because I am not native speaker, to understand the sentence is a little harder for me.

for this case, I am sunk in the prep "for",
but I am afraid I need your further explanation:

mikemcgarry
(2c) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants. = even more elegant: this is what the GMAT loves!

(3c) "... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants ..." = an elegant gem! Again, this is what the GMAT loves, and this is the version in the OA.
after reading this thread, I got an idea that both 2c and 3c are correct.
Show more
Dear zoezhuyan,
I'm happy to respond. :-) Yes, (2c) and (3c) are correct. This construction is subtle and sophisticated: I certainly can understand why it would be puzzling to someone who has learned English as a second language!

Of course, part of what is hard is that common words have been omitted in the second branch of the parallelism and we have figure out what those are. See:
Dropping Common Words in Parallel on the GMAT

Let's look at these with the extra words put back in.

The version in (B)
(B expanded) ... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as the cost is for other types of power plants...
This is 100% correct. Why is "for" used in this construction? It sounds so right to a native ear, but it's hard to put this in words. Sometimes, the preposition "for" is used for a separate situation or case, for the experience of another person or the process of another object.
I love opera, but the experience is not the same for her.
Americans stridently clamor for individual liberties, but for the Chinese, responsibilities to the family and to the country are more meaningful.
The lion struts across the Serengeti as if it owns the place, but for the gazelle, this large plain is forever a precarious place of danger.
We can reheat leftovers, but for frying food, we need a stove top.
Once again, this is a sophisticated structure, used only in very high quality writing.
This is the construction used in (B). This compares two nouns, "cost" to "cost." If we drop the implied extra words, we get:
(B) ... the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants ....
That's the OA.

The version in (C) & (D), instead of the noun "cost" we use the verb "it cost." Here are the words in (C) and in (D)
(CD) ... it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as for other types of power plants...
This involves the empty "it" construction: the subject of the verb "costs" is the infinitive "to run" after the verb. I would say that I unfairly criticized this construction in one of the posts above. This is fine. The expanded version is:
...it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as it costs for other types of power plants ...
That part of (C) & (D) is correct, but those two have other problems!

In (C), both clauses begin with "it" but it's not the same "it." Typically, when the same pronoun opens the two clauses of a sentence, this pronoun has the same reference. This is not the case at all in (C), and that mismatch creates a very awkward sentence.

In (D), I would say everything up to the first comma is fine, but the "they" is ambiguous, and "stemming from" is an extremely awkward construction.

Does all this make sense now, my friend?

Have a wonderful weekend.

Mike :-)
   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts