thanks for confirming. got some doubts on your earlier reply.

GMATGuruNY wrote:If a VERB in the first clause changes to a MODIFIER in the second clause, the comparison is almost certain to be wrong.

as the verb charge in the first clause has been changed to a verb-ing modifier charging , hence per this rule the comparison in E is wrong. right ?

GMATGuruNY wrote: E: Three times as many charge under $8000 as those charging over $16,000.
Since as many as must be followed by a verb, the portion in blue is not a non-clause.
Rather, it is a CLAUSE with the verb OMITTED.
Since the portion in blue lacks its own verb, the verb from the first clause -- charge -- is implied:
Three times as many CHARGE under $8000 as those charging over $16,000 CHARGE.
The result -- those charging over $16000 charge -- is an error of redundancy.

if the rule in your FIRST quote is true,then how the explanation in your above (re SECOND) quote stands good ?
if we consider that the "the verb from the first clause -- CHARGE -- is implied" in the SECOND portion in BLUE, then how at the same time the earlier rule holds true here -- verb charge changed to verb-ing modifier charging (because anyway we're putting the verb in the SECOND portion as well) ?

don't get this clear. how these two things can be simultaneously true ?

can you please help!

gmatguru,
any feedback on my above concerns ?

thank you!

ngk4mba3236 wrote:thanks for confirming. got some doubts on your earlier reply.

GMATGuruNY wrote:If a VERB in the first clause changes to a MODIFIER in the second clause, the comparison is almost certain to be wrong.

as the verb charge in the first clause has been changed to a verb-ing modifier charging , hence per this rule the comparison in E is wrong. right ?

GMATGuruNY wrote: E: Three times as many charge under $8000 as those charging over $16,000.
Since as many as must be followed by a verb, the portion in blue is not a non-clause.
Rather, it is a CLAUSE with the verb OMITTED.
Since the portion in blue lacks its own verb, the verb from the first clause -- charge -- is implied:
Three times as many CHARGE under $8000 as those charging over $16,000 CHARGE.
The result -- those charging over $16000 charge -- is an error of redundancy.

if the rule in your FIRST quote is true,then how the explanation in your above (re SECOND) quote stands good ?
if we consider that the "the verb from the first clause -- CHARGE -- is implied" in the SECOND portion in BLUE, then how at the same time the earlier rule holds true here -- verb charge changed to verb-ing modifier charging (because anyway we're putting the verb in the SECOND portion as well) ?

don't get this clear. how these two things can be simultaneously true ?

can you please help!

The issue is what APPEARS in the answer choice.
If a verb in the first clause appears as a VERBing or VERBed modifier in an answer choice, then the answer choice is almost certain to be wrong (for the reasons stated in my posts above).

GMATGuruNY wrote:If a verb in the first clause appears as a VERBing or VERBed modifier in an answer choice, then the answer choice is almost certain to be wrong (for the reasons stated in my posts above).

gmatguru,
did you intend to mean here "If a VERB in the first clause changes to a MODIFIER in the second clause, the comparison is almost certain to be wrong." ? -- this is what you've mentioned in one of your earlier quotes.

btw, can we consider the followings standard in GMAT comparison ?

1. If a VERB in the first clause changes to a VERBing or VERBed MODIFIER in the second clause, the comparison is almost certain to be wrong.

2. If a VERBing or VERBed modifier in the first clause is transformed into a VERB in the second clause, then the answer choice will also be considered wrong.

curious to know your thoughts!

ngk4mba3236 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:If a verb in the first clause appears as a VERBing or VERBed modifier in an answer choice, then the answer choice is almost certain to be wrong (for the reasons stated in my posts above).

gmatguru,
did you intend to mean here "If a VERB in the first clause changes to a MODIFIER in the second clause, the comparison is almost certain to be wrong." ? -- this is what you've mentioned in one of your earlier quotes.

These are different ways of stating the same information.
If a verb in the first clause incorrectly changes to a modifier in the second clause, the incorrect modifier form will generally appear in an answer choice.
Thus, if a verb in the first clause appears as a modifier in an answer choice, the answer choice is probably wrong.

btw, can we consider the followings standard in GMAT comparison ?

1. If a VERB in the first clause changes to a VERBing or VERBed MODIFIER in the second clause, the comparison is almost certain to be wrong.

2. If a VERBing or VERBed modifier in the first clause is transformed into a VERB in the second clause, then the answer choice will also be considered wrong.

These guidelines seem reasonable.

wonerful explanations mitch sir,Many kitchens today are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets, such as blenders and food processors, which are able to inflict as serious injuries as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine.
BUT you said ed modifier should not be followed by noun in this post.
Only PARALLEL FORMS can be compared.
E: Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, fewer than the ones killed by bee stings.
Here, the killed in red serves not as a verb but as an ADJECTIVE describing ones.
What KIND of ones?
Ones KILLED BY BEES STINGS.
As result, E incorrectly compares a VERB (have been killed) to a MODIFIER (the killed in red)
Eliminate E.

OA: Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, fewer than have been killed by bee stings.

Now iam lost ,where iam going wrong? please reply

wonerful explanations mitch sir,Many kitchens today are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets, such as blenders and food processors, which are able to inflict as serious injuries as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine.
BUT you said ed modifier should not be followed by noun in this post.
Only PARALLEL FORMS can be compared.
E: Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, fewer than the ones killed by bee stings.
Here, the killed in red serves not as a verb but as an ADJECTIVE describing ones.
What KIND of ones?
Ones KILLED BY BEES STINGS.
As result, E incorrectly compares a VERB (have been killed) to a MODIFIER (the killed in red)
Eliminate E.

OA: Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, fewer than have been killed by bee stings.

Now iam lost ,where iam going wrong? please reply

sagarock wrote:wonerful explanations mitch sir,Many kitchens today are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets, such as blenders and food processors, which are able to inflict as serious injuries as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine.
BUT you said ed modifier should not be followed by noun in this post.

To which post and to which VERBed modifier(s) are you referring?
Please note that the answer choice quoted above is incorrect.

Only PARALLEL FORMS can be compared.
E: Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, fewer than the ones killed by bee stings.
Here, the killed in red serves not as a verb but as an ADJECTIVE describing ones.
What KIND of ones?
Ones KILLED BY BEES STINGS.
As result, E incorrectly compares a VERB (have been killed) to a MODIFIER (the killed in red)
Eliminate E.

OA: Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, fewer than have been killed by bee stings.

Now iam lost ,where iam going wrong? please reply

Where are you getting lost?
Please clarify.

Many kitchens today are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets, such as blenders and food processors,capable of inflicting injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine.
sir this part how can this be right ,isnt this contrary to the rule you mentioned in your previous post?
Thank you

sagarock wrote:Many kitchens today are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets, such as blenders and food processors,capable of inflicting injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine.
sir this part how can this be right ,isnt this contrary to the rule you mentioned in your previous post?
Thank you

The two answer choices are not the same.

Incorrect:
Only seven people this century have been killed by the great white shark, fewer than the ones killed by bee stings.
Here, a VERBed modifier (killed) is compared to a VERB (have been killed) in the preceding clause.
The result is an illogical comparison.

Correct:
injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine
Here, the VERBed modifier (caused) is NOT compared to a verb in the preceding clause.
Implied comparison:
injuries [that are] as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine [are serious].
This comparison is logical.