• Free Practice Test & Review
How would you score if you took the GMAT

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Magoosh
Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5 Day FREE Trial
Study Smarter, Not Harder

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Trial & Practice Exam
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
Register now and save up to \$200

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Veritas GMAT Class
Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 1 Hour Free
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Get 300+ Practice Questions

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

## While it costs about the same

This topic has 7 expert replies and 14 member replies
Goto page
• 1,
• 2
Joined
23 Jan 2012
Posted:
774 messages
Followed by:
14 members
46

#### While it costs about the same

Tue Mar 19, 2013 2:10 am
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

my doubt : while i do understand that A is wrong for many other reason but plz confirm whether the initial comparison in A is oki :While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants

Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!
apoorva.rattan Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
07 Oct 2009
Posted:
55 messages
Wed May 22, 2013 3:04 pm
What is the OA for this question, though ? Is it E ?

voodoo_child Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Posted:
404 messages
Followed by:
1 members
3
Wed May 22, 2013 11:05 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
It must be CRYSTAL CLEAR what words have been omitted and what meaning is implied.
In the second clause, a reader could interpret other types as the subject of the implied verb cost or as the direct object of to run:
Other types of power plants cost about the same.
To run other types of power plants costs about the same
.
Since a reader might misinterpret the intended meaning, look for an answer choice that makes the comparison clear.

Hello Mitch,
About D) - do you think it could be interpreted as "It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as it costs for the other types of power plants to run nuclear plants "

apoorva.rattan Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
07 Oct 2009
Posted:
55 messages
Wed May 22, 2013 3:04 pm
What is the OA for this question, though ? Is it E ?

voodoo_child Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Posted:
404 messages
Followed by:
1 members
3
Wed May 22, 2013 11:05 am
GMATGuruNY wrote:
It must be CRYSTAL CLEAR what words have been omitted and what meaning is implied.
In the second clause, a reader could interpret other types as the subject of the implied verb cost or as the direct object of to run:
Other types of power plants cost about the same.
To run other types of power plants costs about the same
.
Since a reader might misinterpret the intended meaning, look for an answer choice that makes the comparison clear.

Hello Mitch,
About D) - do you think it could be interpreted as "It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as it costs for the other types of power plants to run nuclear plants "

iongmat Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
24 May 2011
Posted:
187 messages
Followed by:
1 members
6
Target GMAT Score:
710
Sun Aug 03, 2014 9:13 pm
GMATGuruNY wrote:
First clause: It costs about the same to run nuclear plants.
Conveyed meaning: To run nuclear plants costs about the same.
Hello Mitch, even if this is the conveyed, meaning the sentence would be:

To run nuclear plants costs about the same as (to run) other types of power plants (costs).

This seems ok to me. So, why is it incorrect?

### GMAT/MBA Expert

GMATGuruNY GMAT Instructor
Joined
25 May 2010
Posted:
13607 messages
Followed by:
1796 members
13060
GMAT Score:
790
Sat Aug 02, 2014 3:08 pm
iongmat wrote:
Hello Mitch, after going thru your posts above, I believe following is what you recommend:

(I) Nuclear plants cost twice as much to run as other types of power plants

This is a correct sentence, since it can only be interpreted in one way:

Nuclear plants cost twice as much to run as other types of power plants (cost to run)

(II) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants

This is an incorrect sentence, since it can only be interpreted in two ways:

(a) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants (cost)
(b) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants (cost to run)

Is my understanding of your recommendation correct? I am having difficulty in appreciating how we can infer (a) above; how we can just stop at "cost" and not assume "cost to run".
It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants.
Here, we cannot assume the presence of cost to run in the second clause because this phrase does not appear in the first clause.
In the phrase cost to run, to run serves as a modifier.
But in the first clause, to run serves not as a modifier but as part of the SUBJECT.
In the first clause, it is an expletive standing in for the infinitive subject to run nuclear plants.
First clause: It costs about the same to run nuclear plants.
Conveyed meaning: To run nuclear plants costs about the same.
As you can see, the phrase cost to run is not included in the conveyed meaning.
Thus, we can not assume the presence of this phrase in the second clause.

_________________
Mitch Hunt
GMAT Private Tutor
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Thank" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.

Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.
iongmat Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
24 May 2011
Posted:
187 messages
Followed by:
1 members
6
Target GMAT Score:
710
Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:17 pm
Hello Mitch, after going thru your posts above, I believe following is what you recommend:

(I) Nuclear plants cost twice as much to run as other types of power plants

This is a correct sentence, since it can only be interpreted in one way:

Nuclear plants cost twice as much to run as other types of power plants (cost to run)

(II) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants

This is an incorrect sentence, since it can only be interpreted in two ways:

(a) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants (cost)
(b) It costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants (cost to run)

Is my understanding of your recommendation correct? I am having difficulty in appreciating how we can infer (a) above; how we can just stop at "cost" and not assume "cost to run".

ramitagrawal Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
26 Mar 2013
Posted:
35 messages
Followed by:
1 members
2
Thu May 23, 2013 4:03 am

Thanks!

Joined
23 Jan 2012
Posted:
774 messages
Followed by:
14 members
46
Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:14 pm
thanks a lot Mitch

Quote:
Please see my amended post above.
i somehow get the feeling that the whole answer to this riddled sentence lies in ur last amended post especially this line : :Here, it's clear that other types of power plants serves as the subject of the second clause. . i feel because the sentence---nuclear plants cost twice as much to run as other types of power plants --- is so parallel in terms of subject -verb- object order that the construction after as is also deemed as subject .hence this construction does not create any ambiguity and we are able to compare the cost of running the nuclear power plant with the cost of running the other power plant

now
for this sentence --While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants ---such parallelism does not exist and hence the portion after as can act as a subject or as an object and hence the ambiguity that u told does exists

Quote:
mitch told :The GMAT might add a verb to the second clause, as in SC89 in the OG12:
yeah thanks for putting that reference as i was about to come on this but Mitch what i guess is that version of this sentence without the working verb might just work well and gmat might test that
Mitch kindly corroborate my understanding

### GMAT/MBA Expert

GMATGuruNY GMAT Instructor
Joined
25 May 2010
Posted:
13607 messages
Followed by:
1796 members
13060
GMAT Score:
790
Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:18 am
thanks a lot Guru
but plz tell me in the sentence i wrote : nuclear plants cost twice as much to run as other types of power plants

i have included "to run" (bolded) so why have u said that i am just comparing the NUCLEAR PLANTS COST with OTHER TYPES OF POWER PLANTS COST
i guess that "to run" is taking care to show that its the cost to run these plant thats being compared

plz guide me Mitch
Please see my amended post above.

_________________
Mitch Hunt
GMAT Private Tutor
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Thank" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.

Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.
Joined
23 Jan 2012
Posted:
774 messages
Followed by:
14 members
46
Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:36 am
thanks a lot Guru
Quote:
guru said :In your example, it's clear that what NUCLEAR PLANTS COST is being compared what OTHER TYPES OF POWER PLANTS COST.
But by making nuclear plants and other types of power plants the subjects, you imply that the PLANTS THEMSELVES are being compared.
but plz tell me in the sentence i wrote : nuclear plants cost twice as much to run as other types of power plants

i have included "to run" (bolded) so why have u said that i am just comparing the NUCLEAR PLANTS COST with OTHER TYPES OF POWER PLANTS COST
i guess that "to run" is taking care to show that its the cost to run these plant thats being compared

plz guide me Mitch

### GMAT/MBA Expert

GMATGuruNY GMAT Instructor
Joined
25 May 2010
Posted:
13607 messages
Followed by:
1796 members
13060
GMAT Score:
790
Wed Mar 20, 2013 9:10 am
thanks a lot guru
but plz tell me when u say that one of the interpretation is :While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants [cost]..
isn't "cost to run" understood in this interpretation (what is preventing us to consider this ellipses )
It must be CRYSTAL CLEAR what words have been omitted and what meaning is implied.
In the second clause, a reader could interpret other types as the subject of the implied verb cost or as the direct object of to run:
Other types of power plants cost about the same.
To run other types of power plants costs about the same
.
Since a reader might misinterpret the intended meaning, look for an answer choice that makes the comparison clear.

Quote:
also if i put the comparison as :: nuclear plants cost twice as much to run as other types of power plants
then i believe this ambiguity does not arise
plz tell me what can be the reason ?
thanks and regards
Here, it's clear that other types of power plants serves as the subject of the second clause.
The GMAT might add a verb to the second clause, as in SC89 in the OG12:
Dirt roads cost twice as much to maintain as paved roads DO.

_________________
Mitch Hunt
GMAT Private Tutor
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com
If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "Thank" icon.
Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.

Last edited by GMATGuruNY on Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:15 am; edited 2 times in total

Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.
Joined
23 Jan 2012
Posted:
774 messages
Followed by:
14 members
46
Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:50 pm
thanks spark but plz tell is this comparison oki : nuclear power plants cost twice as much to run as other power plants

spark Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Joined
15 Aug 2010
Posted:
28 messages
Followed by:
3 members
5
GMAT Score:
760
Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:30 pm
The meaning of the sentence is different if you insert "cost to run" instead of "cost" at the end of the comparison. If a sentence uses an implicitly understood word or phrase, there should be no doubt about what the intended word or phrase is.

Also, the "it costs" construction, which is described with a variety of terminology (placeholder it, syntactic expletive, or emphatic construction), is not technically incorrect on its own, but this type of construction makes answer A a bit awkward.

As I believe you saw, the subject-verb agreement error ("fixed costs...makes") makes it easier to eliminate answer A.

_________________
Stuart Park
Simply Brilliant
Stuart is a Harvard grad GMAT expert who scored 760 the first time he took the exam, with 99th percentile quant and verbal scores. He has extensive experience teaching for one of the "elite" GMAT prep companies. Through http://www.simplybrilliantprep.com he offers online classes, private tutoring and MBA application consulting for clients worldwide.

### Best Conversation Starters

1 lheiannie07 112 topics
2 swerve 64 topics
3 LUANDATO 64 topics
4 ardz24 61 topics
5 AAPL 57 topics
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

### Most Active Experts

1 Scott@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

227 posts
2 Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

176 posts
3 Jeff@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

168 posts
4 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

EMPOWERgmat

138 posts
5 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

129 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts