iongmat wrote: Hi Mitch, I am finding it difficult to comprehend that the sentence is suggesting that rats eat calories.

To me, it seems that we eat diet and the diet in turn, has calories.

The computer chip has more power than most people need.
Implied comparison:
The computer chip has more power than most people need [power].
Here, how much power the computer chip has is compared to how much power most people need.

OA: a diet that has fewer calories than they would normally eat
Implied comparison:
a diet that has fewer calories than they would normally eat [calories]
Here, how many calories the diet has is compared to how many calories the rats would normally eat.

It is quite common to discuss the eating of calories.
From the New York Times:
Most adults should eat between 1,600 and 2,400 calories a day.

Hence, also wanted to check with you if we can interpret option D as:

diet that has at least 30 percent fewer calories than they would normally eat (has calories)

The interpretation above is not viable.
The portion in red is not a noun and thus cannot serve as the subject for has.

GMATGuruNY wrote: diet that has at least 30 percent fewer calories than they would normally eat (has calories)

The interpretation above is not viable.
The portion in red is not a noun and thus cannot serve as the subject for has.

Thanks Mitch. This is another thing that has intrigued me. GMAT does seem to be fine with using a clause many times, when we are expecting a noun. For example:

In human hearing, subtle differences in how the two ears hear a given sound help the listener determine the qualities of that sound.

After the preposition "in", we would expect a noun, but what we have is a "clause".

Similarly, looks like following would be correct:

His survival depends on whether he will be able to cope up.

After the preposition "on", we again have a "clause".

Also, since I am a non-native speaker, "eat calories" seemed strange to me, but I guess that's just an issue with my ears:(.

iongmat wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote: diet that has at least 30 percent fewer calories than they would normally eat (has calories)

The interpretation above is not viable.
The portion in red is not a noun and thus cannot serve as the subject for has.

Thanks Mitch. This is another thing that has intrigued me. GMAT does seem to be fine with using a clause many times, when we are expecting a noun. For example:

In human hearing, subtle differences in how the two ears hear a given sound help the listener determine the qualities of that sound.

After the preposition "in", we would expect a noun, but what we have is a "clause".

Similarly, looks like following would be correct:

His survival depends on whether he will be able to cope up.

After the preposition "on", we again have a "clause".

Certain words -- how, why, that, whether, etc. -- enable a clause to function as a noun.
How Mary lost the race is unclear.
Here, the entire colored portion (blue + red) serves as the subject of is.
Fans wonder why Mary lost the race.
The scoreboard indicates that Mary lost the race.
In each of these sentences, the entire colored portion (blue + red) serves as the direct object of the preceding verb.
Our team's final score depends on whether Mary lost the race.
Here, the entire colored portion (blue + red) serves as the object of the preposition on.
In each of the sentences above, the blue word preceding the red clause enables the entire colored portion -- blue + red -- to function as a noun.

than does NOT enable a clause to function as a noun.
The following sentence is not viable:
Scientists cannot determine than the rats normally eat.
This sentence is nonsensical because the red portion is not a noun and thus cannot serve as the direct object of determine.

OA: a diet that has fewer calories than they normally eat
Here, than is a CONJUNCTION serving to CONNECT the clause in blue to the clause in red.
Since the red clause is not preceded by a word that enables it to function as a noun, the interpretation in your post above is not viable.

GMATGuruNY wrote: than does NOT enable a clause to function as a noun.

Thanks Mitch. This is all a learning experience.

Doing a bit of research, I came across the following sentence, where it looks like than is enabling a clause to function as a noun.

The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction; its numbers are now five times greater than when the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970's.

Would appreciate your inputs on this.

=

iongmat wrote:

GMATGuruNY wrote: than does NOT enable a clause to function as a noun.

Thanks Mitch. This is all a learning experience.

Doing a bit of research, I came across the following sentence, where it looks like than is enabling a clause to function as a noun.

The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction; its numbers are now five times greater than when the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970's.

Would appreciate your inputs on this.

The OA above conveys the following:
Its numbers are now five times greater than [its numbers were great] when the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970's.
Here, than is a conjunction serving to connect the blue independent clause to the preceding red independent clause.
The independent clause in blue is not functioning as a noun.

Thanks for so patiently answering and resolving all my queries Mitch.

Really appreciate.