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 do
livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat they think is good for cardiac health.
A. wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of
fat they think is
B. wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat
thought to be
C. wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain and have more fat
of a kind thought to be
D. total fat of wild animals is less than livestock fed on grain and they have more fat of a
kind thought to be
E. total fat is less in wild animals than that of livestock fed on grain and more of their fat
is of a kind they think is
I have a quick question about choice B. The explanation on OG said the "do" can be omitted which is in the origianl sentence. Do you think the "do" should be after "fed on grain" or omitted? because "do" instead of "have"?
Thanks in advance!
Target Test Prep is 20% off right now!
Use code FLASH20
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
OG 2016 SC 111
This topic has expert replies
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
ceilidh.erickson
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2095
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
- Thanked: 1443 times
- Followed by:247 members
The frustrating thing about comparisons is that often there is more than one comparison structure that would be correct. For example:
Pizza tastes better than salad.
vs.
Pizza tastes better than salad does.
These are both grammatically correct. In the first example, we're comparing nouns, but in the second we're comparing the act of tasting. Because the meaning is the same in either case, the "does" is not necessary in the second example.
There are times when a verb is necessary in a comparison, though. Consider:
I want to eat a hamburger more than my dog.
Well, this could mean that I want to eat a hamburger more than my dog wants to eat a hamburger, or it could mean that I want to eat a hamburger more than I want to eat my dog! I'd need to add something to make it clear whether "dog" is the comparative subject or object:
I want to eat a hamburger more than my dog does. -> My dog also wants to eat a hamburger.
I want to eat a hamburger more than I do my dog. -> I want to eat my dog.
If we need to make clear whether we're comparing a SUBJECT or an OBJECT, then it's necessary to include a verb. If the meaning is unambiguous, we don't need to include a verb.
In your example, "wild animals have less total fat than livestock," there is no ambiguity - we're comparing wild animals to livestock. (We do have an object here, "total fat," but it would be nonsensical to say "wild animals have less total fat than they have livestock," so there is no meaning ambiguity). As such, we don't need a verb. Often when something is not grammatically necessary, the OG explanation will say that it can be omitted. That's not to say that it would be grammatically incorrect to include the "do." It would just be less concise than it could be.
Does that help?
Pizza tastes better than salad.
vs.
Pizza tastes better than salad does.
These are both grammatically correct. In the first example, we're comparing nouns, but in the second we're comparing the act of tasting. Because the meaning is the same in either case, the "does" is not necessary in the second example.
There are times when a verb is necessary in a comparison, though. Consider:
I want to eat a hamburger more than my dog.
Well, this could mean that I want to eat a hamburger more than my dog wants to eat a hamburger, or it could mean that I want to eat a hamburger more than I want to eat my dog! I'd need to add something to make it clear whether "dog" is the comparative subject or object:
I want to eat a hamburger more than my dog does. -> My dog also wants to eat a hamburger.
I want to eat a hamburger more than I do my dog. -> I want to eat my dog.
If we need to make clear whether we're comparing a SUBJECT or an OBJECT, then it's necessary to include a verb. If the meaning is unambiguous, we don't need to include a verb.
In your example, "wild animals have less total fat than livestock," there is no ambiguity - we're comparing wild animals to livestock. (We do have an object here, "total fat," but it would be nonsensical to say "wild animals have less total fat than they have livestock," so there is no meaning ambiguity). As such, we don't need a verb. Often when something is not grammatically necessary, the OG explanation will say that it can be omitted. That's not to say that it would be grammatically incorrect to include the "do." It would just be less concise than it could be.
Does that help?
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
ceilidh.erickson
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2095
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
- Thanked: 1443 times
- Followed by:247 members
Here's a breakdown of all the answer choices:
A. wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat they think is
The biggest issue in A is not the use of "do" (it's grammatically correct, but not necessary). Instead, it's the use of "they." This pronoun has no antecedent except "wild animals," which would be nonsensical, so it's not correct.
B. wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat thought to be
Correct comparison.
C. wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain and have more fat of a kind thought to be
The issue here is that "that of" refers to "total fat," so it we plugged it back in it would read "wild animals have less total fat than the total fat of livestock..." This construction is redundant. The correct way to use "that of" would have been to say "the total fat of wild animals is less than that of livestock..."
D. total fat of wild animals is less than livestock fed on grain and they have more fat of a kind thought to be
Here, because the ordering has been reversed, it's actually comparing "total fat" to "livestock." This comparison would need a "that of" to compare total fat to total fat.
E. total fat is less in wild animals than that of livestock fed on grain and more of their fat is of a kind they think is
Completely unparallel comparison, and "their" is ambiguous.
The correct answer is B.
A. wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat they think is
The biggest issue in A is not the use of "do" (it's grammatically correct, but not necessary). Instead, it's the use of "they." This pronoun has no antecedent except "wild animals," which would be nonsensical, so it's not correct.
B. wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat thought to be
Correct comparison.
C. wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain and have more fat of a kind thought to be
The issue here is that "that of" refers to "total fat," so it we plugged it back in it would read "wild animals have less total fat than the total fat of livestock..." This construction is redundant. The correct way to use "that of" would have been to say "the total fat of wild animals is less than that of livestock..."
D. total fat of wild animals is less than livestock fed on grain and they have more fat of a kind thought to be
Here, because the ordering has been reversed, it's actually comparing "total fat" to "livestock." This comparison would need a "that of" to compare total fat to total fat.
E. total fat is less in wild animals than that of livestock fed on grain and more of their fat is of a kind they think is
Completely unparallel comparison, and "their" is ambiguous.
The correct answer is B.
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
-
Crystal W
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:34 am
- Thanked: 2 times
Thank you for you explanation, but can you explainmore about choice A? I know the mistake about they in choice A, but do you think A should omit do or put do after livestock, because the do refers to have?ceilidh.erickson wrote:The frustrating thing about comparisons is that often there is more than one comparison structure that would be correct. For example:
Pizza tastes better than salad.
vs.
Pizza tastes better than salad does.
These are both grammatically correct. In the first example, we're comparing nouns, but in the second we're comparing the act of tasting. Because the meaning is the same in either case, the "does" is not necessary in the second example.
There are times when a verb is necessary in a comparison, though. Consider:
I want to eat a hamburger more than my dog.
Well, this could mean that I want to eat a hamburger more than my dog wants to eat a hamburger, or it could mean that I want to eat a hamburger more than I want to eat my dog! I'd need to add something to make it clear whether "dog" is the comparative subject or object:
I want to eat a hamburger more than my dog does. -> My dog also wants to eat a hamburger.
I want to eat a hamburger more than I do my dog. -> I want to eat my dog.
If we need to make clear whether we're comparing a SUBJECT or an OBJECT, then it's necessary to include a verb. If the meaning is unambiguous, we don't need to include a verb.
In your example, "wild animals have less total fat than livestock," there is no ambiguity - we're comparing wild animals to livestock. (We do have an object here, "total fat," but it would be nonsensical to say "wild animals have less total fat than they have livestock," so there is no meaning ambiguity). As such, we don't need a verb. Often when something is not grammatically necessary, the OG explanation will say that it can be omitted. That's not to say that it would be grammatically incorrect to include the "do." It would just be less concise than it could be.
Does that help?
Thanks in advance!
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
ceilidh.erickson
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2095
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 3:22 pm
- Thanked: 1443 times
- Followed by:247 members
I think it's actually strange that the answer explanation cited the "do" issue specifically. It's perfectly correct with it, perfectly correct without it. You won't ever see a question that simply comes down to this issue, when there's no meaning distinction between the two.Crystal W wrote: Thank you for you explanation, but can you explainmore about choice A? I know the mistake about they in choice A, but do you think A should omit do or put do after livestock, because the do refers to have?
Thanks in advance!
Ceilidh Erickson
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
EdM in Mind, Brain, and Education
Harvard Graduate School of Education
-
aflaam
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 2:52 pm
- Thanked: 4 times
- Followed by:1 members
Hello Ceilidh.ceilidh.erickson wrote:I think it's actually strange that the answer explanation cited the "do" issue specifically. It's perfectly correct with it, perfectly correct without it. You won't ever see a question that simply comes down to this issue, when there's no meaning distinction between the two.Crystal W wrote: Thank you for you explanation, but can you explainmore about choice A? I know the mistake about they in choice A, but do you think A should omit do or put do after livestock, because the do refers to have?
Thanks in advance!
In this SC are do and have replaceable?
wild animals have less total fat than have livestock fed on grain
wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain
Are these two correct?
if yes, then Is this always the case in comparisons?
Thanks
-
Crystal W
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:34 am
- Thanked: 2 times
I believe do replace have less total fat this whole thing not only verb have.aflaam wrote:Hello Ceilidh.ceilidh.erickson wrote:I think it's actually strange that the answer explanation cited the "do" issue specifically. It's perfectly correct with it, perfectly correct without it. You won't ever see a question that simply comes down to this issue, when there's no meaning distinction between the two.Crystal W wrote: Thank you for you explanation, but can you explainmore about choice A? I know the mistake about they in choice A, but do you think A should omit do or put do after livestock, because the do refers to have?
Thanks in advance!
In this SC are do and have replaceable?
wild animals have less total fat than have livestock fed on grain
wild animals have less total fat than do livestock fed on grain
Are these two correct?
if yes, then Is this always the case in comparisons?
Thanks
