Thanks for your continuous support Mitch. This discussion is very helpful to me (and hopefully to others as well).

I see your point about "was prepared" being ambiguous (since it can be considered active or passive).

However, that level ambiguity exists even in "is prepared" as well.

So, "ellipsis" does not seem to be adding any additional ambiguity and hence, should not be a reason for this sentence to be incorrect.

iongmat wrote:Thanks for your continuous support Mitch. This discussion is very helpful to me (and hopefully to others as well).

I see your point about "was prepared" being ambiguous (since it can be considered active or passive).

However, that level ambiguity exists even in "is prepared" as well.

So, "ellipsis" does not seem to be adding any additional ambiguity and hence, should not be a reason for this sentence to be incorrect.

The issue here is precedent.
The DEFAULT rule is as follows:
If the second clause in a comparison reflects a change in tense, the second clause should have its own main verb.

Offhand, I can cite only two SCs that veer from this rule:
Prices are expected to be higher this year than last.
Its numbers are now five times greater than when the use of DDT was sharply restricted.

In each case, the first clause ends with a form of to be (in blue), a comparative (in red), and a time modifier (in green).
In your sentence, the ending of the first clause includes a participle.
Absent an official precedent for this construction, we should be skeptical, given the default rule above.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

Mo2men wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:

Mo2men wrote:Dear Guru,

While I understand your point in the sentence above. I don't understand why It is not applicable to do the same for the following the sentence:

Can you kindly clarify why subject+verb could be omitted?

The OA implies the following meaning:
[There is] more antimonopoly litigation at present than [there has] ever [been antimonopoly litigation] before.
Here, the omitted verb in blue (has been) is in a different tense from the preceding implied verb (is).
The omitted verb in blue is a form of TO BE.
On the GMAT, an omitted verb may be in a different tense from the preceding verb if the omitted verb is a form of to be.
I discuss this issue here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/comparison-t289039-15.html

Dear Guru,

[There is] more antimonopoly litigation at present than [there has] ever [been antimonopoly litigation] before.

Why did you mention 'there is'? in the sentence above, the main verb is 'has resulted'? what is the second verb should be? is it 'has been' or 'has resulted' also?

Can you please help?

Thanks

OA: The increase has resulted in more antimonopoly litigation at present than ever before.
Here, at present is not an adverb modifying has resulted but an ADJECTIVE modifying antimonopoly litigation.
A more precise completion of the ellipsis in the OA:
More antimonopology litigation [is] at present than [anitmonolopoly litigation has been] ever before.
The intended comparison, however, might be better expressed as follows:
There is more antimonopoly litigation at present than there has ever been antimonopoly litigation before.

Hence my explanation above.

Dear Mitch,

I have studied your explanation more than once but I do not understand why you have changed the sentence from:
The increase has resulted in more antimonopoly litigation at present than ever before

into the following

There is more antimonopoly litigation at present than there has ever been antimonopoly litigation before.

I feel that you imposed verb 'to be' in your explanation. Do I need to change the sentence structure to add verb 'to be'?

I think the sentence above does not follow the rule you cited in other posts about ellipses with verb 'to be' because it does not have verb 'to be' in the first clause.

Can you help please with extra comments?

Thanks in advance.

Mo2men wrote:I feel that you imposed verb 'to be' in your explanation. Do I need to change the sentence structure to add verb 'to be'?

I think the sentence above does not follow the rule you cited in other posts about ellipses with verb 'to be' because it does not have verb 'to be' in the first clause.

Can you help please with extra comments?

Thanks in advance.

Generally:
When a than-clause or an as-clause serves to refer not to a preceding clause but to a preceding NOUN AND ADJECTIVE, implied in the than-clause or as-clause will be a form of to be (is, are, has been, have been, was, were, etc.).
I have never met a student taller than John.
Here, the than-clause serves to modify the noun and adjective in blue.
Conveyed comparison:
I have never met a student taller than John [is tall].
The words in brackets are omitted, but their presence is implied.
The implied verb -- is -- is a form of to be.

The increase has resulted in more antimonopoly litigation at present than ever before.
Here, the than-clause serves to modify the noun and adjective in blue.
Conveyed comparison:
The increase has resulted in more antimonopoly litigation at present than [antimonopoly litigation has been] ever before.
The words in brackets are omitted, but their presence is implied.
The implied verb -- has been -- is a form of to be.

Another official example:
Many kitchens today are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets capable of inflicting injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine.
Here, the as-clause serves to modify the noun and adjective in blue.
Conveyed comparison:
Many kitchens today are equipped with high-speed electrical gadgets capable of inflicting injuries as serious as those caused by an industrial wood-planing machine [are serious].
The words in brackets are omitted, but their presence is implied.
The implied verb -- are -- is a form of to be.

GMATGuruNY wrote:The issue here is precedent.
The DEFAULT rule is as follows:
If the second clause in a comparison reflects a change in tense, the second clause should have its own main verb.

Hello Mitch sir, in light of this, wanted to take your opinion on the following sentence:

Although Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than for any previous campaigns, it had provisions for only twenty-four days.

It looks like here, the tense is changing from "simple past" to "past perfect".

Basically, when the army entered Russia, it had far more supplies than it had had for any previous campaigns.

iongmat wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote:The issue here is precedent.
The DEFAULT rule is as follows:
If the second clause in a comparison reflects a change in tense, the second clause should have its own main verb.

Hello Mitch sir, in light of this, wanted to take your opinion on the following sentence:

Although Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than for any previous campaigns, it had provisions for only twenty-four days.

It looks like here, the tense is changing from "simple past" to "past perfect".

The sentence above conveys the following comparison:
Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than [the supplies] for any previous campaign.
Although not necessary, a form of to be can be inserted into the than-clause, as follows:
Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than [had been the supplies] for any previous campaign.

Sir, I could find a sentence where GMAT seems to be using past perfect with "previously".

The success of the program to eradicate smallpox has stimulated experts to pursue something they had not previously considered possible -- better control, if not eradication, of such infections as measles and yaws.

Though, I am not sure if "previous" vs "previously" would make any difference.

iongmat wrote:Sir, I could find a sentence where GMAT seems to be using past perfect with "previously".

The success of the program to eradicate smallpox has stimulated experts to pursue something they had not previously considered possible -- better control, if not eradication, of such infections as measles and yaws.

Though, I am not sure if "previous" vs "previously" would make any difference.

Yes, a past perfect verb can be combined with a time-modifier such as previously.
SC98 in the OG for Verbal more precisely implies the following:
Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than [had been the supplies] for any previous campaign.
I've amended my earlier post accordingly.

Thanks Mitch and just so that I confirm my understanding, "had been" is just a past perfect of "to be" and so, is in conformance with your earlier observation that "to be" verbs can be different across the two parts of the sentence.

iongmat wrote:Thanks Mitch and just so that I confirm my understanding, "had been" is just a past perfect of "to be" and so, is in conformance with your earlier observation that "to be" verbs can be different across the two parts of the sentence.

Correct!