Sentence Correction

Wild animals have less total fat than livestock.
Wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock.
Wild animals have less total fat than livestock's
The fat of wild animals is less than that of livestock.

Which ones are correct or incorrect and why..?

This is from S.C. question 111 in the current Official Guide, and I'm afraid that the editors have made a slip-up here, because no answer is correct. The sentence is trying to compare what wild animals HAVE with what livestock HAVE. It does not want to compare wild animals with livestock or fat with livestock or wild animals with fat. Nevertheless, this is what happens.

Wild animals have less total fat than livestock. This makes no sense because it says that wild animals have fat and that they also have livestock, though less of it. (This is the answer that The Official Guide says is correct, but it is not correct.)

Wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock. This makes no sense because it says that wild animals have less fat than the fat of livestock - in other words, it compares animals with fat.

Wild animals have less total fat than livestock's. This makes no sense, in the first place because it is not clear what is possessed here by livestock. In the second place, if what is possessed is fat, then the sentence is saying that wild animals have less fat than the fat of livestock - in other words, the previous error is repeated.

The fat of wild animals is less than that of livestock. This also makes no sense. It is comparing fat with fat, and there is nothing wrong with that, but LESS here lacks an adjective to qualify. LESS what? Less abundant? Less noticeable? Less concentrated? The sentence is trying to say that the fat of wild animals exists to a lesser degree than the fat of livestock, but it fails to do so.

Thank you very much..

sandeep bansal wrote:Wild animals have less total fat than livestock.
Wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock.
Wild animals have less total fat than livestock's
The fat of wild animals is less than that of livestock.

Which ones are correct or incorrect and why..?

The full OA from the Official Guide reads as follows: According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat from wild animals and meat from domesticated animals, wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat thought to be good for cardiac health.

The phrase "wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain" really means "wild animals have less total fat than [do] livestock fed on grain." The omission of an implied word in a sentence is called an ellipsis, and we see an instance of this here. Note that this interpretation is the only coherent way to read the sentence.

(If you'd received a sentence, such as "Dave likes math more than his wife," the GMAT would have a problem with this construction (as would my spouse) because there are two potentially logical interpretations: 1) Dave likes math more than his wife likes math vs 2) Dave likes math more than he likes his wife.)

See here for a full discussion of the actual problem: https://www.beatthegmat.com/according-to ... 84907.html

It's certainly true that sentences with two possible logical interpretations are a problem. But it's also true that when an ellipsis is used, the sentence has to continue to make sense. In other words, the words that constitute the ellipsis, or omission, must not be necessary for the sentence to avoid saying something absurd. The sentence must continue to be completely logical as it stands. It must make sense on both a literal and an 'interpretative' reading. This is simply not the case with the sentence wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain. It is clear what the sentence wants to say, but it is also clear that it does not succeed in saying it.

The following sentence, which contains an ellipsis, is perfectly good: Spain has numerous areas of semi-desert, but England does not. It is not necessary to add to England does not the words have numerous areas of semi-desert. This is because even though the sentence does not contain those words, their absence does not create any ambiguity, either between two possible logical interpretations or between a logical and an illogical one.

Let's take a case comparable with the one in question - for instance, the sentence Lions need to drink water more often than camels. It could be argued that here is a case of ellipsis, and that DO is not necessary at the end of the sentence because it is sufficiently clear what the intended meaning is - in other words, that this is the only coherent way to read the sentence. Lions drink water frequently, and camels drink it less frequently. But a sentence has to rely for its meaning on what it says and not on what we may attribute to it despite what it says. Thus, this sentence really says that lions drink water, and that they also drink camels. If we want the sentence to make sense, we have to add DO at the end, thus converting the object CAMELS into a subject, and so avoiding a conflict between a logical intended meaning and an absurd stated meaning. The grammatical and the logical solution go hand-in-hand.

I

fabiocafarelli wrote:It's certainly true that sentences with two possible logical interpretations are a problem. But it's also true that when an ellipsis is used, the sentence has to continue to make sense. In other words, the words that constitute the ellipsis, or omission, must not be necessary for the sentence to avoid saying something absurd. The sentence must continue to be completely logical as it stands. It must make sense on both a literal and an 'interpretative' reading. This is simply not the case with the sentence wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain. It is clear what the sentence wants to say, but it is also clear that it does not succeed in saying it.

The following sentence, which contains an ellipsis, is perfectly good: Spain has numerous areas of semi-desert, but England does not. It is not necessary to add to England does not the words have numerous areas of semi-desert. This is because even though the sentence does not contain those words, their absence does not create any ambiguity, either between two possible logical interpretations or between a logical and an illogical one.

Let's take a case comparable with the one in question - for instance, the sentence Lions need to drink water more often than camels. It could be argued that here is a case of ellipsis, and that DO is not necessary at the end of the sentence because it is sufficiently clear what the intended meaning is - in other words, that this is the only coherent way to read the sentence. Lions drink water frequently, and camels drink it less frequently. But a sentence has to rely for its meaning on what it says and not on what we may attribute to it despite what it says. Thus, this sentence really says that lions drink water, and that they also drink camels. If we want the sentence to make sense, we have to add DO at the end, thus converting the object CAMELS into a subject, and so avoiding a conflict between a logical intended meaning and an absurd stated meaning. The grammatical and the logical solution go hand-in-hand.

I

You are certainly entitled to your own usage philosophy, but even if the point is a valid one, I'm not sure it's time well spent to quibble with the usage philosophy of the folks who make the rules for the test. There are some grammar rules that are universal - subject and verb should agree, etc. - but the usage of the ellipsis does not seem to be one that's governed by this sort of inviolable consensus. (My go-to usage guides are Garner's Modern American Usage and The Chicago Manual of Style. Neither seems to address the issue of whether a sentence with an ellipse should make literal sense without the implied word.) So within the realm of debatable rules, there's certainly room for personal interpretation. If the purpose of this forum were to debate usage in our own writing, perhaps this would be a discussion worth having. But since we're here to prepare for the GMAT, doesn't it make more sense to work to understand the philosophy of the people who write the test rather than trying to impose our own interpretations on them?

If your argument is that GMAC was simply asleep at the wheel for this question, this is quite the slumber, one that likely involved enough tranquilizer to take down a decent-sized mastodon. This same question has appeared in the GMATPrep software in addition to the most recent addition of the Official Guide, so one imagines that it's gone through a fairly significant vetting process. Moreover, the explanation in the Official Guide contains the following line, "Note that while the phrase less total fat than livestock differs from the phrase less total fat than do livestock in the original, either would be correct here." So they appear to have given this some thought.

This is not a question of 'imposing our own interpretations on [the people who write the test']. Nor is it about any personal 'usage philosophy'. The fact is that the people to whom you refer do themselves require comparisons to be made logical by the insertion of a verb. Thus, two conclusions follow:
1. One has the right to require GMAC to be consistent;
2. It becomes impossible to depend on the notion of an ellipsis to justify as correct in one case what is rightly considered incorrect in a comparable case: Question 61, current Official Guide.

D. would have to know a great deal more than they do now about the social and economic
E. would have to know a great deal more than now about the social and economic

If we accept the notion of 'the only coherent way to read the sentence', then we must accept that E is good. Obviously, nobody intends to compare what demographers would have to know with NOW: 'the only coherent way to read the sentence' would be to postulate an ellipsis and conclude as a result that the sentence really makes sense. But it does not make sense, because there is on the one hand a logical intended meaning and on the other an absurd stated meaning. This is precisely why Option E is not the correct answer, and why Option D, which inserts the requisite subject and verb, is given by GMAC as the correct answer - and here, they're right.

GMAC is not infallible, as you come rather close to implying. The fact that it states in its explanation of the question about livestock that 'either would be correct here' may indeed mean that they 'have given this some thought' - or it may mean that they have given it some, but not enough. Precisely because students have got, in your words, 'to understand the philosophy of the people who write the test', I have to object that the philosophy must be consistent. GMAC can't have it both ways. If wild animals can have less total fat than livestock, then demographers can know more than now, and lions can drink camels.

But perhaps we shall just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

fabiocafarelli wrote: Wild animals have less total fat than livestock. This makes no sense because it says that wild animals have fat and that they also have livestock, though less of it.

Yes, this doesn't make sense and hence, this is not how it should be interpreted.

This is exactly David's point. So, the only logical interpretation is:

Wild animals have less total fat than livestock (have).

So, even without explicitly introducing the verb "have", there is only one logical interpretation of this sentence. Hence, there is no real need to explicitly mention this verb (though it would not have been incorrect, even if the verb was repeated).

Apply the notion of 'the only logical interpretation' to the example about knowing more than now in my previous post and you will see that it becomes possible to justify on those grounds the option that GMAC gives as incorrect. But this is my last post on this matter, as I've made my point in my previous one, and I believe that the point stands. I'll leave to others to agree or disagree as they may see fit.

fabiocafarelli wrote:Apply the notion of 'the only logical interpretation' to the example about knowing more than now in my previous post and you will see that it becomes possible to justify on those grounds the option that GMAC gives as incorrect.

This is incorrect for a completely different reason. Would you agree that this is a comparison question? If yes, then comparison has to be between similar things. Here, we have "now" (a "chronology" parameter) on one side of the comparison operator ("than"), but on the other side of the comparison operator, there is no "chronology" parameter.

So, the correct answer (option D) changes the structure to compare "knowledge" rather than "chronology".

By the way, if you wanted to retain "now" and not change the structure, then the sentence should be (hypothetically) somewhere along these lines:

E. would have to know a great deal more tomorrow than today about the social and economic

Now the sentence is comparing similar things (chronological parameters "tomorrow" and "today").

fabiocafarelli wrote:this is my last post on this matter, as I've made my point in my previous one

Actually these kind of discussions really help, because experts such as David pitch in with insights that help all aspirants know the finer nuances.

fabiocafarelli wrote:This is not a question of 'imposing our own interpretations on [the people who write the test']. Nor is it about any personal 'usage philosophy'. The fact is that the people to whom you refer do themselves require comparisons to be made logical by the insertion of a verb. Thus, two conclusions follow:
1. One has the right to require GMAC to be consistent;
2. It becomes impossible to depend on the notion of an ellipsis to justify as correct in one case what is rightly considered incorrect in a comparable case: Question 61, current Official Guide.

D. would have to know a great deal more than they do now about the social and economic
E. would have to know a great deal more than now about the social and economic

In the vast majority of cases, GMAC abides by the following rule:
When one clause is compared to another, the main verb may be omitted in the second clause only if the two clauses are in the SAME TENSE.
If the two clauses are in different tenses, the second clause must supply its own verb.

SC111:
OA: Wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain.
Implied comparison:
Wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain [have total fat].
Here, both clauses are in the same tense.
Thus, the verb in brackets -- have --may be omitted in the second clause.

SC61:
E: Demographers would have to know a great deal more than now.
Implied comparison:
Demographers would have to know a great deal more than [demographers know] now.
Here, the verb in the first clause is composed of a subjunctive verb form (would have) and an infinitive (to know), while the implied verb in the second clause (know) is in the simple present tense.
Since the tense in the second clause is NOT the same as that in the first, the implied verb in brackets -- know -- may NOT be omitted in the second clause.
Eliminate E.

In the OA to SC61, the second clause supplies its own verb:
Demographers would have to know a great deal more than they DO now.
Here, do stands in for the simple present tense form of the antecedent verb to know.

fabiocafarelli wrote:This is not a question of 'imposing our own interpretations on [the people who write the test']. Nor is it about any personal 'usage philosophy'. The fact is that the people to whom you refer do themselves require comparisons to be made logical by the insertion of a verb. Thus, two conclusions follow:
1. One has the right to require GMAC to be consistent;
2. It becomes impossible to depend on the notion of an ellipsis to justify as correct in one case what is rightly considered incorrect in a comparable case: Question 61, current Official Guide.

D. would have to know a great deal more than they do now about the social and economic
E. would have to know a great deal more than now about the social and economic

If we accept the notion of 'the only coherent way to read the sentence', then we must accept that E is good. Obviously, nobody intends to compare what demographers would have to know with NOW: 'the only coherent way to read the sentence' would be to postulate an ellipsis and conclude as a result that the sentence really makes sense. But it does not make sense, because there is on the one hand a logical intended meaning and on the other an absurd stated meaning. This is precisely why Option E is not the correct answer, and why Option D, which inserts the requisite subject and verb, is given by GMAC as the correct answer - and here, they're right.

GMAC is not infallible, as you come rather close to implying. The fact that it states in its explanation of the question about livestock that 'either would be correct here' may indeed mean that they 'have given this some thought' - or it may mean that they have given it some, but not enough. Precisely because students have got, in your words, 'to understand the philosophy of the people who write the test', I have to object that the philosophy must be consistent. GMAC can't have it both ways. If wild animals can have less total fat than livestock, then demographers can know more than now, and lions can drink camels.

But perhaps we shall just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

I implied that GMAC was infallible? Finally, the Pope has some competition!

You're frustrated with what you perceive to be GMAC's inconsistency. I can understand that. But GMAC writes the test, and it determines what is correct and incorrect. We can wish it weren't so. We can quietly say unkind things about them to our loved ones. But they call the shots. That is simply the reality. (Unless you're planning some kind of GMAT coup, in which case, I want in

But let's grant you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say GMAC may have goofed on multiple occasions. The claim is that if 111B can be considered correct then we must also consider an incorrect answer - 61E- correct, otherwise the test writers have been inconsistent. This claim is predicated on the notion that the two are structurally similar. And, well, they aren't. There is a logical way to interpret answer choice 111B that is consistent with common usage. Wild animals have less total fat than [do] livestock fed on grain. Could it be written in a way to make it a little clearer? I suppose. But it's certainly the best of the available options.

There is simply no logical way to interpret 61E that is consistent with common usage. Demographers would have to know a great deal more than now. You would need to insert a full clause to make E sensible. This is an important distinction.

If this isn't clear, consider a simple sentence, such as Tim has more money than Tom. Technically, I suppose one could claim that we don't know whether the sentence is asserting that Tim has more money than Tom has (logical) or asserting that Tim has more money than he has some fragment of Tom. (insane.)

The point is that Tim has more money than Tom has a logical interpretation that is consistent with common usage. Moreover the ellipsis involves a single word.

Now consider a case in which the implied portion is a full clause: Tim has more money than now. You could argue that the ellipse here is "Tom has." But no reasonable English speaker would. And to argue that if you do not accept "Tim has more money than now" then you cannot accept "Tim has more money than Tom," is not terribly persuasive. One is consistent with common usage. The other is not.

Grammatical minutia aside, this is all to say that it's dangerous to simply assume that GMAC has made a mistake and that a type of usage we encounter in the Official Guide cannot appear on the actual exam. But if you really think they've made an error, why not simply ask them? ([email protected]) or https://www.beatthegmat.com/ask-the-test-maker-f71.html For an infallible organization, they're quite friendly and responsive.

GMATGuruNY wrote: SC61:
E: Demographers would have to know a great deal more than now.
Implied comparison:
Demographers would have to know a great deal more than [demographers know] now.
Here, the second clause is NOT in the same tense as the first.
Thus, the verb in brackets -- know -- may NOT be omitted in the second clause.
Eliminate E.

GMATGuruNY, can you please explain this a bit more. Not very clear.