clock60 wrote:hi aspirant
i saw this problem earlier so i think that i can explain.
i think that you are actually between B and C as other choices are inferior to those.
in B
wild animals have less total fat than livestock -pretty nice version,look at example
Ann has fewer coins than Bob,the structure is similar to above in B
but in C
wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock, what is that of? compare with
Ann has fewer coins than that of Bob, it is nonsensical comparison.
for sure we can write
the economy of USA is greater than that of Africa. ( no offence to Africa), here that of refer to the economy, and it is logical comparison or in other version
the USA has greater economy than Africa. the same concept is tested here
as for other options
in A- they think
in D- total fat of wild animals is less than livestock wrong comparison
of total fat with animals, vague antecedent-they
in E total fat is less in wild animals than that in of livestock, i hope preposition in is needed here, of thehasir-again vague antecedent, they think- does not mean anything, it follows that recent studies think
Hi Clock60,
Thanks for your response. Yup I am confused between B and C

..........can you please tell that in your example which you explained i.e
"Ann has fewer coins than that of Bob, it is nonsensical comparison."........in this to what is
"that of" refering??????? does it refer to
coins of bob??????though I agree on "Ann has fewer coins than Bob
has"
If I take option C then
that of refers to
total fat and I feel that the sentence is logical i.e
wild animals have less total fat than total fat of livestock????????Am I correct???????