bblast wrote:Researchers discovered that the failure of legislation passed in 1936 in France to improve the working conditions of bakers was due more to the fear that large conglomerates would gain footholds in small communities than to any inherent problem in the legislation.


more to the fear that large conglomerates would gain footholds in small communities than to any

to the fear that large conglomerates could gain footholds in small communities than to any

because of the fear that large conglomerates could gain footholds in small communities and also

because there were more to fearing that large conglomerates could gain footholds in small communities than any

because there was more of a fear that large conglomerates could gain footholds in small communities than to any



please discuss with reasoning

Due because is redundant - saying the same thing twice, and awkward to boot.

Between A and B, you really need the more to show the comparison.

"due more to A....than to B"

Seems like a fairly straightforward A. What did Princeton have in mind for this one?

"due more to A....than to B"

I eliminated A due to this construction and selected B.

Option B:

Researchers discovered that the failure of legislation passed in 1936 in France to improve the working conditions of bakers was due to the fear that large conglomerates could gain footholds in small communities than to any inherent problem in the legislation.

What is the reason to eliminate B? I found the parts in blue to be parallel. The only difference I see between the two is would/could.

Anyways, looks like I have to add this idiom to the list.

Eliminated other options based on same reasoning as above.

Yup, Geva, spot on as always.

OA is A.

Even I was able to narrow down to A by POE, but would u rate this a good question ? I personally found it a bit weird ? "due more"???

Due more is added to compare the actual reason to the inherent problem in the legislation.
Like more due to this .......... than to .....!

bblast wrote:Yup, Geva, spot on as always.

OA is A.

Even I was able to narrow down to A by POE, but would u rate this a good question ? I personally found it a bit weird ? "due more"???

It's the equivalent of saying "I do so and so more because of reason A than because of reason B".

the main difference is that in this example, the "because" comes after the more, and so must appear in both parts of the parallel construction to maintain parallelism.

Due to can actually appear before the parallel construction even begins, and control both parts

I do so and so due more to reason A than to reason B.

The whole idea behind the parallel constructions is that the "controlling part" (the part before the const.) can be logically and grammatically inserted before both parts of the construction. That's why both parts need to be parallel - so that they can both work with the controlling part. Many parallelism problems will "play" with moving words back and forth between the controlling part and the construction itself. In the original example, "due" comes before the construction more...than, and thus due becomes part of the "controlling part", and controls both portions of the construction.

Thanks, So we actually conclude this topic declaring this a very good question. I have not come across this idiom previously.

bblast wrote:Thanks, So we actually conclude this topic declaring this a very good question. I have not come across this idiom previously.

Oh, I wouldn't call it a GOOD question...just not a completely terrible one.