Sentence Correction

Parallelism
========
1.)The students did poorly on the test more because they hadn't studied than not understanding the material.

Answer in MGMAT SC guide
==================

The students did poorly on the test more because they hadn't studied than because they didn't understand the material.


My Question - Why the answer cannot be as follows :

[b]The students did poorly on the test more because they hadn't studied than because they hadn't understood the material.[/b]




COMPARISONS
==========

2.)The tycoon contributed more to the candidate's campaign than anyone else in the industry.


Answer in the MGMAT SC Guide
=====================

- The tycoon contributed more to the candidate's campaign than did anyone else in the industry.



My Question - Why the answer cannot be as follows:

[b]The tycoon contributed more to the candidate's campaign than anyone else did in the industry.[/b]


Can anyone please clarify me ?

Many thanks!

]The students did poorly on the test more because they hadn't studied than because they hadn't understood the material.

The had is used only when there are two actions of the past. Had is used with action which got completed earlier.


2)
Answer
The tycoon contributed more to the candidate's campaign than did anyone else in the industry.

Your choice
The tycoon contributed more to the candidate's campaign than anyone else did in the industry.

If you read carefully, placement of did is actually changing the meaning.

stop@800.

Can you please clarify further ?

Which two actions are you taking about ? Both the actions "studied" and "understanding" are past actions in the sentence. And "did poorly on the test" is the simple past action. So why shouldn't the previous actions in both the cases have "had" instead of having just in one ????


About second question can you please explain the changed meaning ?

We could have also written it as

"The tycoon contributed more to the candidate's campaign than anyone else contributed".

Then what is wrong in replacing "contributed" with "did" and writing as it as I have mentioned in my previous answer.


Another example in SC says:

Julia was able to climb the tree as fast as her brothers did.

Then why not " Julia was able to climb the tree as fast as did her brothers", if we go by the same logic ????

OR lets say it was not "as fast as" but was "faster than".

Julia was able to climb the tree faster than her brothers did.

OR should it have been

Julia was able to climb the tree faster than did her brothers ???? ( I guess this is wrong).



Can you please explain what am I missing ?

Thanks.

Hi,

regardin ur first query,

The students did poorly on the test more because they hadn't studied than because they hadn't understood the material.

is wrong........cos............two actions are involved....

1. Its common sense to assume that they had studied for the test .....before the test took place..........hence had is mandatory for this fragment......

2. For second there are two interpretations.............

First.....They did not perform well because they did not understnad the material tested on the test.....i.e.....they could not understand the questions on the test........so simle past is required.......

Second, they could nto understand the study materail.......
now here is the trap......first u study the material and then only u come to know whether u understood it or not.........right.........hence ....again simple past.......

sp19 wrote:stop@800.

Can you please clarify further ?

Which two actions are you taking about ? Both the actions "studied" and "understanding" are past actions in the sentence. And "did poorly on the test" is the simple past action. So why shouldn't the previous actions in both the cases have "had" instead of having just in one ????


About second question can you please explain the changed meaning ?

We could have also written it as

"The tycoon contributed more to the candidate's campaign than anyone else contributed".

Then what is wrong in replacing "contributed" with "did" and writing as it as I have mentioned in my previous answer.


Another example in SC says:

Julia was able to climb the tree as fast as her brothers did.

Then why not " Julia was able to climb the tree as fast as did her brothers", if we go by the same logic ????

OR lets say it was not "as fast as" but was "faster than".

Julia was able to climb the tree faster than her brothers did.

OR should it have been

Julia was able to climb the tree faster than did her brothers ???? ( I guess this is wrong).



Can you please explain what am I missing ?

Thanks.

mastbombay,
I appreciate your response. However, my concern is still as stated in my previous post.

I understand that "studied" is a past action than "taking the exam", hence, past perfect. But what about the second part.

Isn't "understanding" an action that has happened before "taking exam as well" ?? Why are we comparing the latter two actions i.e. "studied" and understand". In that sequence you are right that is studying comes before understanding. But what about comparing it with "did poorly" ??

My question is, why "studied and understanding" both NOT considered as past perfect when compared to "did poorly". I think both the actions should be considered parallel when using comparisons.

Can you please explain this to me ?

Anyone please please please respond me. I am still looking for an answer.

Thanks.

Hello sp19,

My attempt to clarify the things further

First:
I understood your point and I think its valid. I would want the experts to comment on it.

If I split, both are correct
The students did poorly on the test because they hadn't studied.
The students did poorly on the test because they hadn't understand the material.

I am sure there must be some logic but right now I can not recall, I will get back on it.


Second:
"did in the industry." is making it incorrect.

I think, It is correct to say
The tycoon contributed more to the candidate's campaign than anyone else contributed.
or better one
The tycoon contributed more to the candidate's campaign than anyone else did.

stop@800,
I really appreciate your response. However, I would love to see explanations that have grammatical rules to validate them.

I would like experts to comment on. BTW, do you know how to get them to answer me ??

I have asked Stacey in a private message, still to receive her reply.

Thanks.