madddie wrote:I came across 2 different sentences(both from OG) that use logical predication (comparisons)
Inuits of the Bering Sea were isolated from contact with Europeans longer than
Aleuts or Inuits of the North Pacific and northern Alaska
Inuits of the Bering Sea were isolated from contact with Europeans longer than
were Aleuts or Inuits of the North Pacific and northern Alaska
2nd question
A study commissioned by the Department of Agriculture showed that if calves exercise and associate with other calves, they require less medication and gain weight more quickly than
those raised in confinement
A study commissioned by the Department of Agriculture showed that if calves exercise and associate with other calves, they require less medication and gain weight more quickly than
do those raised in confinement
Pls post the answer to both these questions with explanation
OA [spoiler] q1> B......q2>A[/spoiler]
---------------------------------------
If you find this post helpful-----ex"press" by pressing thanks
You know, I have to say I *don't* think the "do" would be ungrammatical per se if it showed up in the calves sentence, even I know the OG explanation says (with little if any convincing support) that it would. On the surface, the calves sentence seems like it should be as willing to take a "do" as the Aleuts sentence is to take a "were." The OG explanation "justifies" the need to strike the "do" with the explanation that the comparison is between "calves" and "those" (other calves), but that doesn't seem like a valid justification, since in the Aleuts sentence, the comparison is between [Inuits of the Bering Sea] and [Aleuts or Inuits of the North Pacific and northern Alaska], yet the OG doesn't make the same argument in that sentence as in the calves sentence.
But I do think there's a good argument for the inclusion of "were" in the first sentence and for the exclusion of "do" in the second. In the first, we NEED something else to making the meaning clear. In its initial form, we've got "X were isolated from contact with Europeans longer than Y." In this form, the sentence could mean either that
(1) X were isolated from contact with Europeans longer than Y were isolated from contact with Europeans, OR that
(2) X were isolated from contact with Europeans longer than X were isolated from contact with Y.
The problem is that there's no way to tell which the sentence means, from its initial form. So acceptable fixes would be either (1) inserting a "were" before Y -- which clearly then conveys meaning (1), or (2) inserting "they were from contact with" before Y -- which clearly then conveys meaning (2). Since again, there's no way of knowing initially what the sentence "means" to mean
, you can bet that only one of these fixes would show up among your answer choices. Whichever one showed up would be fine.
As for the calves question, the question as written in the OG doesn't actually *require* you to make a decision regarding whether to include the "do," since the two more glaring issues are the answer choice splits between "associate" and "associated" (we definitely need "associate," which narrows our choices down to C, D, and E) and the follow-up choice among "required," "have required," and "require" (we definitely need "require," so it has to be E).
But, since the "do" question is a good one anyway, if I had to make that call, I'd opt out of the "do" -- again, not because I think it's actually ungrammatical, but because here I think it clouds the meaning a bit more than it helps it. No meaning help is needed here as the sentence isn't logically subject to the ambiguities that marked our Aleuts sentence, do the "do" isn't necessary from a clarity perspective. And if we insert the "do," it seems possible to me to construe it as only replicating the one verb "gain weight," thereby sort of leaving "require medication" OUT of the comparison, when in fact we want it to be in.
I'd venture to say that on the test, the only situations in which you might be forced to make a decision strictly about "do" (or "does" or "did") inclusion will be ones in which the actual MEANING is ambiguous without something like a "do" to clarify it. "I like pizza more than my brother" could have two entirely different interpretations, so I NEED to insert either "does" or "I like" before "my brother" to give that sentence clarity.
If the meaning isn't ambiguous, look for other errors or requirements of the sentence (such as those tense requirements and violations that show up among the OG answer choices for the calves sentence) and don't worry about what the "do" is doing or not doing
Good luck on your test, maddie!
