Sentence Correction

lunarpower wrote:in general,

1 * if you have than/as + subject + FORM OF "TO BE" as the second half of a comparison, then you must have another form of "to be" in the first half of the comparison.

2 * if you have than/as + subject + HELPING VERB as the second half of a comparison, then you must have the SAME helping verb (perhaps in a different tense) in the first half of the comparison.

3 * if you have than/as + subject + FORM OF "TO DO" as the second half of a comparison, then you must have an ACTION VERB (or another form of "to do") in the first half of the comparison.

here are some examples:
#1
see the post directly above this one.
also
parking spots are disappearing much more quickly today than they were yesterday.
#2
james can negotiate with salespeople more effectively than stephanie can.
i can run much faster than i could before my most recent knee operation. (note that "could" is the past tense of "can", so these are the same helping verb.)
#3
parking spots disappeared much faster today than they did yesterday.
tanya eats more slowly than she did when she was a teenager. (note that "did" doesn't have to have the same tense as the action verb)

What about these sentences:

The economy of china grew faster in the year 1990 than in the year 2000.
The economy of china grew at the same rate in the year 1990 as in the year 2000.

are these constructions OKAY?

lunarpower wrote:in general,

1 * if you have than/as + subject + FORM OF "TO BE" as the second half of a comparison, then you must have another form of "to be" in the first half of the comparison.

2 * if you have than/as + subject + HELPING VERB as the second half of a comparison, then you must have the SAME helping verb (perhaps in a different tense) in the first half of the comparison.

3 * if you have than/as + subject + FORM OF "TO DO" as the second half of a comparison, then you must have an ACTION VERB (or another form of "to do") in the first half of the comparison.

here are some examples:
#1
see the post directly above this one.
also
parking spots are disappearing much more quickly today than they were yesterday.
#2
james can negotiate with salespeople more effectively than stephanie can.
i can run much faster than i could before my most recent knee operation. (note that "could" is the past tense of "can", so these are the same helping verb.)
#3
parking spots disappeared much faster today than they did yesterday.
tanya eats more slowly than she did when she was a teenager. (note that "did" doesn't have to have the same tense as the action verb)

@Ron : parking spots disappeared much faster today than they did yesterday.

Is it correct to say as below instead?

parking spots disappeared much faster today than yesterday ?

I learnt from your thursday videos that when there is comparison, if it is not ambgious , you can ignore the helping verb
in the secoind part . Could above rules be replaced by that simple statement which is more practical and easy to
remember forever (not only GMAT) .

Thanks Ron . I get all three rules in the right context now .

And Sorry , I really misplaced the word "instead" in my post.

To clarify everything again, it is advisable to avoid use of helping/action verb if there is no ambiguity in the sentence . But one must do use them as per rules above , in case , ambiguity arises.

Following this reasoning, I look at the problem #38 you mentioned from Verbal complement secone Edition.

Answer choice D uses "Do" (than do those rasied in confinement) , and OG mentions that "Do" must be omitted. It should be advisable to remove "Do" rather than saying it must be omitted.

So final take away is "when you don't need action/helping/model verb" , you SHOULD NOT use them . Am I correct ?

Hi Ron,

Thanks for a nice summary. I used to go by logically meaning however reading above made me realize these are things we follow but never able to document by clear rules. Hats off to you!!!

I face 1 issue though while solving such questions i.e. hidden verb( some called it eclipse rule)

for eg in your sentence: James can negotiate with salespeople more effectively than stephanie can

Sometimes highlighted 'can' is omitted and its often termed as understood.

Could you please help us out in understanding this..

loveusonu wrote:Hi Ron,

Thanks for a nice summary. I used to go by logically meaning however reading above made me realize these are things we follow but never able to document by clear rules. Hats off to you!!!

I face 1 issue though while solving such questions i.e. hidden verb( some called it eclipse rule)

for eg in your sentence: James can negotiate with salespeople more effectively than stephanie can

Sometimes highlighted 'can' is omitted and its often termed as understood.

Could you please help us out in understanding this..

CAN is required in this sentence.

The sentence intends to say that
James is better at negotiations than Stephanie is.

Had the sentence intended to say "James can not negotiate with Stephanie as efficiently as he can with salespeople", then CAN could have been omitted. We need to observe the intended meaning of the sentence and try to find the logical comparison.

Final solution at one place:

Important: The purpose of this post (and all the other posts by me) is to give a complete solution to all GMAT-Prep Verbal questions at one place. Sometimes students have to wade through dozens of posts to get to the final answer. My posts will give one complete and crisp solution required to arrive at the correct answer by eliminating the wrong one. Some of the content in these posts may have been taken from various other sources (discussion forums).

If current trends continue, by the year 2010 carbon emissions in the United States will soar to a level more than one-third higher than were those in 1990, according to official projections.
(A) will soar to a level more than one-third higher than were those
(B) will soar to a level more than one-third higher than that
(C) would soar to a level more than one-third higher than it was
(D) would soar to a level more than one-third higher than those
(E) would soar to a level more than one-third higher than they were

A word about conditionals:

If I meet her, I will tell her a story.

This is called a CONDITIONAL:

In this, we are talking about a "POSSIBLE" future - the action is NOT IMPROBABLE in future.

In this case, use the PRESENT + FUTURE (WILL) form.

So the sentence "If I meet her, I will tell her a story." Means that there is a positive possibility of my meeting her in the future...

Never use double future in such sentences:

If I WILL meet her, I WILL tell her a story. - WRONG.

But we may use the present tense in both parts if the context so demands:

If I meet her, I tell her a story.

In this case, 'if' means 'whenever'... this is correct construction.

***

If I met her, I would tell her a story.

If I were to meet her, I would tell her a story.

Were I to meet her, I would tell her a story.

All of these forms mean the same thing... there is no preference for one to another.

Even this form denotes FUTURE.

In this, we are talking about an almost "IMPOSSIBLE" future - the action is IMPROBABLE in future.

In this case, use the

PAST + WOULD form

Or If + were + would form

Or Were + Would form....

So the sentence "If I met her, I would tell her a story." Means that there is a hardly any possibility of my meeting her in the future...

SIMILARLY the sentence "If I were to meet her, I would tell her a story." Means that there is a hardly any possibility of my meeting her in the future...

Similarly the sentence "Were I to meet her, I would tell her a story." Means that there is a hardly any possibility of my meeting her in the future...

In all "wish" sentence, the above structures are used.

****

If I had met her, I would have / could have told her a story.

≡ Had I met her, I would have / could have told her a story.

This sentence is not about FUTURE... this is about PAST that could not happen...

We always use

"If + had + would / could have" form OR

"HAD + would / could have" form here

In the given sentence, we are talking about 'future' with respect to 'present'. In this case, 'will' is the correct usage. 'Would' is correct when the future is talked about with respect to 'past'. This eliminates C, D, and E.

Here the comparison is for the levels ... so 'will soar to a level more than one-third higher than that (the level) in 1990 ... brings out the correct comparison in B.

Choice A uses 'those (plural)' to refer to 'level (singular)' ... wrong. Also, A is not parallel ('were' is not parallel to any preceding word).

B: correct

HI RON
i read this statement of yours :

* if you have than/as + subject + HELPING VERB as the second half of a comparison, then you must have the SAME helping verb (perhaps in a different tense) in the first half of the comparison.

And if i use it to solve these two questions then i find the answer in these questions violates this rule.kindly tell me how do i reconcile this

questions 1: Researchers are studying plastics that dissolve at different rates, and they are finding that the so-called "quick disintegration" plastics are taking more time to deteriorate than they originally seemed.

A. they originally seemed
B. they seemed originally
C. it seemed that they would originally
D. it originally seemed
E. it originally seemed they would

question 2 : Because of the multiplier effect inherent in any unlimited-transaction economy, the spending of one dollar typically generates several times the gross income in such an economy than in a single- or limited-transaction economy.

A)typically generates several times the gross income in such an economy than
B)typically generates several times the gross income in such an economy than it would
C)typically generates several times as much gross income in such an economy as though
D)in such an economy typically generates several times as much gross income as the spending of one dollar would
E)in such an economy typically generates several times the gross income than