Hi aditya8062,

The correct answer is E.

You are correct, "they" refers to elderly people in Japan. We need the plural pronoun "they" to refer to a plural noun introduced earlier in the sentence, and it needs to refer to the right subject (an example of the wrong subject is answer A, where the sentence compares the way elderly people are treated with the way most Western countries are treated!).

You wondered about the need to create a new copy of elderly people. There is no need to do that. The sentence is sufficient with one pronoun and noun combination, as noted above. Your new sentence is correct, although longer than the answer provided in the choices.

hi David
firstly Thanks for your reply

Your new sentence is correct, although longer than the answer provided in the choices.

BY this do you mean that this sentence is correct: elderly people in japan are treated with far greater respect than they are in most Western countries----->i am concerned only with the comparison part.

Yes, your sentence is correct.

Elderly people in japan are treated with far greater respect than they are in most Western countries.

Nice work!

Thanks again David

sentence 1: elderly people in japan are treated with far greater respect than they are in most Western countries

i believe that the intent of this sentence is to compare how "elderly people" are treated in japan with that of how "elderly people" are treated in "most western countries"

now i feel that if i use "they" then the meaning would be misleading
the implied meaning of sentence 1 would be: elderly people in japan are treated with far greater respect than [elderly people in japan] are [treated] in most Western countries----->not correct

to correct sentence 1 i will rewrite it into sentence 2

sentence 2 : elderly people in japan are treated with far greater respect than THOSE in most Western countries

I see your point that the sentence is slightly ambiguous with respect to whether it is elderly people, or elderly Japanese people, who are treated with greater respect in Japan than in Western countries:

Elderly people in Japan are treated with far greater respect than they are in most Western countries.

It would be less confusing if it were written as follows:

In Japan, elderly people are treated with far greater respect than they are in most Western countries.

Or, alternatively, as follows:

Elderly people are treated with far greater respect in Japan than they are in most Western countries.

However, the context of the sentence makes it clear that the sentence is concerned with comparing the treatment of elderly people in Japan and Western countries, NOT the treatment of elderly Japanese people.

sentence 2 : elderly people in japan are treated with far greater respect than THOSE in most Western countries

I just want to know that What's wrong with the above sentence?

j_shreyans wrote:sentence 2 : elderly people in japan are treated with far greater respect than THOSE in most Western countries

I just want to know that What's wrong with the above sentence?

who has told you that this is wrong?

No One has told me. But i just want to know which one is correct.

sentence 1: elderly people in japan are treated with far greater respect than they are in most Western countries
OR
sentence 2 : elderly people in japan are treated with far greater respect than THOSE in most Western countries

what is the difference in both the sentence?

Pls suggest me.

sentence 2 is correct and sentence 1 is wrong

Hi

Thanks for your reply.

Can you pls explain me more why correct and why wrong?

aditya8062 wrote:
my doubt: in option E wont "they" refer to the "same elderly people in japan" . i feel we need to create a new copy of elderly people.

In Japan elderly people are treated with far greater respect than they are in most Western countries.

Generally, an introductory prepositional modifier serves as an ADVERB modifying the VERB in the following clause.
Here, in Japan serves as an adverb modifying are treated.
Conveyed meaning:
Elderly people are treated with far greater respect IN JAPAN than elderly people are [treated with respect] IN MOST WESTERN COUNTRIES.
The words in brackets are omitted, but their presence is implied.
Since each clause is about the SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE -- not elderly people just in Japan but elderly people IN GENERAL -- the usage of they in the second clause seems justified.

for instance had the sentence been: elderly people in japan are treated with far greater respect than they are in most Western countries---->in that case "they" would have referred to "elderly people in japan" and this is because "they" refers to the same copy .

Elderly people in Japan are treated with far greater respect than they are in most Western countries.

Here, in Japan seems to serve not as an adverb modifying are treated but as an ADJECTIVE modifying elderly people.
Thus, the first clause refers not to elderly people in general but ONLY to elderly people IN JAPAN.
The result is that they in second clause seems to refer to this SAME group of people (elderly people in Japan).
Implied comparison:
Elderly people in Japan are treated with far greater respect than elderly people in Japan are treated with respect in most Western countries.
Not the intended meaning.

thanks for your reply Guru .
the reason i had asked this question is because i have read (A RULE)it in many of your posts that pronouns such as "it" , "they" take all the modifiers attached to the previous "noun"

so when i saw this sentence: In Japan elderly people are treated with far greater respect than they are in most Western countries. ---> i told my self that "they" would refer to not just "elderly people" but to "In Japan elderly people" .

But i feel, as you have explained, that "initial prepositional modifiers" attached to "nouns" can be neglected in such cases

GURU please tell me if there are anymore exception to such rule