GMATGuruNY wrote: The correct answer is D.

As is used to compare ACTIONS. In E, charging is not a verb but an ADJECTIVE. As cannot be used to compare a verb (charge) to an adjective (charging). For E to compare actions, it would have to use ellipsis to imply the following:

...more than three times as many...institutions...CHARGE under $8,000...as those charging over $16,000 CHARGE.

Hello Sir, I believe this sentence does not use "as" in a "classical manner", but as part of the "idiom": as many as.

For example: Jack found thrice as many people interested in sports as those not interested in sports.

Here again, "as" is not followed by any verb, but the sentence looks ok to me. Can you advice.

iongmat wrote: Here again, "as" is not followed by any verb, but the sentence looks ok to me. Can you advice.

In the sentence structure you propose, the verb that follows as many as is omitted, but its presence is implied.
Jack found three times as many people in the gym as in the pool.
Here, we are comparing what Jack FOUND in each case:
Jack found three times as many people in the gym as [he found people] in the pool.
The words in brackets are omitted, but their presence is implied.

GMATGuruNY wrote: In E, more than three times as many charge ....as those charging is not a parallel comparison. Eliminate E.

The correct answer is D.

As is used to compare ACTIONS. In E, charging is not a verb but an ADJECTIVE. As cannot be used to compare a verb (charge) to an adjective (charging).

so, can we say that on GMAT, a clause is not parallel to a non-clause modifiers (such as Verb-ing or Verb-ed). so they can't be compared.

GMATGuruNY wrote:I wouldn't worry too much about this question, given that different sources offer different OAs.

isn't it an official sc ?

ngk4mba3236 wrote:so, can we say that on GMAT, a clause is not parallel to a non-clause modifiers (such as Verb-ing or Verb-ed). so they can't be compared.

I would be highly skeptical if a verb in the first clause appears as a modifier (VERBed or VERBing) in the second clause.

Isn't it an official sc ?

Yes -- an SC in GMATPrep.

GMATGuruNY wrote: I would be highly skeptical if a verb in the first clause appears as a modifier (VERBed or VERBing) in the second clause.

so, bottom-line takeaway is:
generally, a clause is not parallel to a non-clause modifiers (such as Verb-ing or Verb-ed),on GMAT.

can we conclude this ?

gmatguru,
any update on the above ?

would much appreciate your feedback. thank you!

ngk4mba3236 wrote:bottom-line takeaway is:
generally, a clause is not parallel to a non-clause modifiers (such as Verb-ing or Verb-ed),on GMAT.

can we conclude this ?

I would not cite this as an absolute rule.

SC63 in the OG for Verbal:
injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine
Implied comparison:
injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine [are serious]
Here, the words in brackets are omitted, but their presence is implied.
The result seems to be a comparison between a clause (the portion in red) and a non-clause (the portion in blue).

GMATGuruNY wrote:

ngk4mba3236 wrote:bottom-line takeaway is:
generally, a clause is not parallel to a non-clause modifiers (such as Verb-ing or Verb-ed),on GMAT.

can we conclude this ?

I would not cite this as an absolute rule.

SC63 in the OG for Verbal:
injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine
Implied comparison:
injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine [are serious]
Here, the words in brackets are omitted, but their presence is implied.
The result seems to be a comparison between a clause (the portion in red) and a non-clause (the portion in blue).

first,could you please clarify what exactly you meant by "I would not cite this as an absolute rule" ? does it anyhow mean that this rule is mostly true in GMAT, but NOT always true ?

as for your example cited above, if we consider this complete sentence then it becomes --->

"Many kitchens today are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets...[that are] capable of inflicting injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine [are serious]" -- the portions in [green] are ELLIPSIS,i think. right ?

I think,here we're comparing the injuries,in terms of the their seriousness,inflicted by electrical gadgets in kitchens with injuries caused by an industrial wood-planing machine.

so,for this intended comparison isn't the following construction of two clauses valid : "...[that are] capable of inflicting injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine [are serious]" ?

so,not able to get that how a clause and a non-clause are compared ?

ngk4mba3236 wrote:bottom-line takeaway is:
generally, a clause is not parallel to a non-clause modifiers (such as Verb-ing or Verb-ed),on GMAT.

can we conclude this ?

This rule mischaracterizes why charge cannot be rephrased as charging in answer choice E above.

Generally, as many as must be followed by a verb:
as many DO x as DO y.
In some cases, the verb after as many as will not be explicitly stated, but its presence will be implied.

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.

I would stick to the rule that I cited above:
If a VERB in the first clause changes to a MODIFIER in the second clause, the comparison is almost certain to be wrong.

ngk4mba3236 wrote: "Many kitchens today are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets...[that are] capable of inflicting injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine [are serious]" -- the portions in [green] are ELLIPSIS,i think. right ?

This SC is not comparing gadgets that are capable to injuries that are serious.
Such a comparison would be illogical.
Rather, it implies the following comparison:
injuries that are as serious as those caused by an industrial planing machine [are serious].
Here, we could interpret that the clause in red is being compared to the preceding that-clause (that are as serious).
Other might interpret that the clause in red is being compared to the entire preceding noun and modifier (injuries that are as serious).
It's probably best not to debate which interpretation is correct.
Such a debate will likely lead not to enlightenment but to confusion.

GMATGuruNY wrote: I would stick to the rule that I cited above:
If a VERB in the first clause changes to a MODIFIER in the second clause, the comparison is almost certain to be wrong.

I hear you here. however, is vice-versa of this rule also true in GMAT ?

GMATGuruNY wrote: Generally, as many as must be followed by a verb:
as many DO x as DO y.
In some cases, the verb after as many as will not be explicitly stated, but its presence will be implied.

confused here! isn't the correct IDIOM as many x as y ?

ngk4mba3236 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote: I would stick to the rule that I cited above:
If a VERB in the first clause changes to a MODIFIER in the second clause, the comparison is almost certain to be wrong.

I hear you here. however, is vice-versa of this rule also true in GMAT ?

I would certainly be skeptical if a modifier in the first clause is transformed into a verb in the second clause.
Offhand, I cannot cite an official answer choice with this construction.

GMATGuruNY wrote: Generally, as many as must be followed by a verb:
as many DO x as DO y.
In some cases, the verb after as many as will not be explicitly stated, but its presence will be implied.

confused here! isn't the correct IDIOM as many x as y ?

For the sake of simplicity, the correct idiom is considered as many X as Y.
Just note that X and Y may be composed of more than just nouns:
As many men as women attended the party.
Three times as many institutions charge over $8,000 as charge under $16,000.
John found twice as many people in the pool as in the gym.

GMATGuruNY wrote: Also, as many as + those is not a valid structure.

GMATGuruNY wrote: SC63 in the OG for Verbal:
injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine

do the above two quotes imply that the fact that "as many as + those is not a valid structure" is restricted ONLY to as many as phrase ?

because phrases such as as serious as those seem to be a valid one.

please clarify.

gmatguru - any update on my above query ?

thank you!

ngk4mba3236 wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote: Also, as many as + those is not a valid structure.

GMATGuruNY wrote: SC63 in the OG for Verbal:
injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine

do the above two quotes imply that the fact that "as many as + those is not a valid structure" is restricted ONLY to as many as phrase ?

because phrases such as as serious as those seem to be a valid one.

please clarify.

This rule is constrained to as many as those.