Mustang wrote:In the Comparisons chapter of Manhattan GMAT the concept on "quickly" is as follows:

Do not compare an adverb that ends in -ly by changing the ending to -er. Instead add "more". The example given is around quicker vs. more quickly.

The question I had is that can this be generalized i.e should quicker (or for that matter any other adverb ending in -ly) never be used in a sentence for comparison and instead be replace by more quickly.

eg:

Adrian runs (more slowly / slower) than Jacob. Which is correct option in this?


Thanks

Well, I would want to see what the experts have to say. But, I personally feel that in the above example, 'slower' should be used instead of 'more slowly'. The latter is wordy & acts as an oxymoron.

Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled automobile companies' common stocks to new highs, several industry analysts expect automakers, in order to conserve cash, to set cash more conservatively than they were.

A) to set dividends more conservatively than they were
B) to set dividends more conservatively than they have been
C) to be more conservative than they have been in setting dividends
D) that they will be more conservative than they were in setting dividends
E) that they will be more conservative than they have been to set dividends


Stacey, using this rule I selected B instead of C because I thought after More it should be conservatively.

Can you please explain why B is wrong and C is correct? Maybe I did not understand this rule properly.

Thanks,

Vineet

Hi this is my take why it is C and not B

Conservative on C is modifying analyst
Conservatibely on B is modifying set

But C is correct becaus of they

They in B can refer to divdends or analyst
C resolves this issue

pls correct me if I am wrong

vineetbatra wrote:Despite recent increases in sales and cash flow that have propelled automobile companies' common stocks to new highs, several industry analysts expect automakers, in order to conserve cash, to set cash more conservatively than they were.

A) to set dividends more conservatively than they were
B) to set dividends more conservatively than they have been
C) to be more conservative than they have been in setting dividends
D) that they will be more conservative than they were in setting dividends
E) that they will be more conservative than they have been to set dividends


Stacey, using this rule I selected B instead of C because I thought after More it should be conservatively.

Can you please explain why B is wrong and C is correct? Maybe I did not understand this rule properly.

Thanks,

Vineet

IMO B is wrong because

1) They can refer to Dividends or analysts .. So unclear
2) At the End of the sentence .. HAVE BEEN is used...it should be
have been setting...

in case we have to avoid the repetition .. we can't avoid it in B
because there is a TO SET in the sentence ...
The sentence will read like ....

to set dividends more conservatively than they have been TO SET

Hi,

Can you please look to the Ron's explanation?

https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/des ... t5893.html

Stacey,

Thanks for the response.

After reading your post and Ron's post I have understood that We use Conservative when referring to a noun, but I don't understand how more conservative is modifying Analysts, it should modify automakers because they are the ones setting dividends.

Thanks,

Vineet

Hi Stacey,

I have understood this question but I have one doubt. I believe conservative is modifying to automakers. right?

Several industry analysts expect automakers to be more conservative than they have been in setting dividends.

thats exactly i had in my mind too.

Conservative is saying about the AUTOMAKERS ( objective )
and not the Analysts ( Main Noun )