comparisons

IMO, option A leaves open an option for inappropriate comparison while option B makes comparison clear.
Thus, given two choices, I think B is more appropriate.

Option A: In option A there are two possible comparisons,
1. effect of quake A compared to effect of quake B
2. effect of quake A compared to quake B.

Option B: By using the verb will at end, the comparison is clear i.e., effect of quake A compared to effect of quake B.

Hope it helps.

B is definately better but why A is incorrect. what is the ambuguity ?, we need helping verb only when there is ambiguity in meaning

vikram4689 wrote:B is definately better but why A is incorrect. what is the ambuguity ?, we need helping verb only when there is ambiguity in meaning

IMO look at the 2 possibilities of (A) quake A will devastate an area 100 times greater than quake B

1) quake A will devastate an area THAT IS 100 times greater than THE AREA THAT quake B WILL DEVASTATE
2) quake A will devastate an area THAT IS "100 times greater than quake B" (here 100 times greater, A NUMBER, than QUAKE B - a noun; therefore, possibility 2 does not show apple to apple comparison)

please see this post https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/sc- ... t3504.html

ron says

"in sentence (1), there is no ambiguity (try to conjure an alternate interpretation; you won't be able to), so you don't need the auxiliary verb."

This statement means that we need helping verbs ONLY when two interpretations are MEANINGFUL, no matter how unlikely (like he says "that must be a really short tree" for sentence 2). Although interpretation of 2) in that post is unlikely because of exceptional tree size, interpretation is possible.

Now lets consider the 2 possible scenarios of sentence in this post:
a) quake A will devastate an area 100 times greater than quake B will devastate - entities compared are underlined and comparison is logical so we all agree
b) quake A will devastate an area 100 times greater than quake A will devastate quake B - can quake A devastate quake B ? can an area be greater than a quake. ? Since both of these questions are nonsense, i think we don't need helping verb and this reasoning is similar to one applied by ron in that post when he says we don't need helping verb in 1)

vikram4689 wrote:experts please tell if following sentences are ok and convey same meaning. i think both are ok as none of them results in ambiguous meaning

a) quake A will devastate an area 100 times greater than quake B
b) quake A will devastate an area 100 times greater than quake B will

Case 1: Quake A will devastate an area 100 times greater than Quake B [is great].
Here, how an area IS GREAT is compared to how Quake B IS GREAT.
Not the intended meaning.

Case 2: Quake A will devastate an area 100 greater than quake B [will devastate]..
Here, how Quake A WILL DEVASTATE is compared to how Quake B WILL DEVASTATE.
This is the intended meaning.

While most readers will glean that the intended meaning is Case 2, the inclusion of a helping verb makes the intention crystal clear:
Quake A will devastate an area 100 greater than Quake B WILL [devastate]..

Please note that both of the following sentences are correct:
Sportscasters predict that Mary will run faster than John.
Sportscasters predict that Mary will run faster than John will.
The issue here is not correctness but CONCISION.
The first sentence is preferable because it conveys the intended meaning more concisely.

It's simple buddy ... what is being compared ... quake A will devastate an area 100 times greater than quake B .. here the area is compared to a quake B .. which doesn't make sense ..

Hope the concept is clear ...

GMATGuruNY wrote:

vikram4689 wrote:experts please tell if following sentences are ok and convey same meaning. i think both are ok as none of them results in ambiguous meaning

a) quake A will devastate an area 100 times greater than quake B
b) quake A will devastate an area 100 times greater than quake B will

Case 1: Quake A will devastate an area 100 times greater than Quake B [is great].
Here, how an area IS GREAT is compared to how Quake B IS GREAT.
Not the intended meaning.

Case 2: Quake A will devastate an area 100 greater than quake B [will devastate]..
Here, how Quake A WILL DEVASTATE is compared to how Quake B WILL DEVASTATE.
This is the intended meaning.

While most readers will glean that the intended meaning is Case 2, the inclusion of a helping verb makes the intention crystal clear:
Quake A will devastate an area 100 greater than Quake B WILL [devastate]..

Please note that both of the following sentences are correct:
Sportscasters predict that Mary will run faster than John.
Sportscasters predict that Mary will run faster than John will.
The issue here is not correctness but CONCISION.
The first sentence is preferable because it conveys the intended meaning more concisely.

mitch,
how do you decide when we need helping verb. i thought we need helping verb when there are 2 possible meanings. thus, i avoided helping verb in first case because meaning in that case is nonsensical. should i retain helping verb if i am able to write 2 different sentences, no matter how non-sensical.