Comparision Confusions.

[codesnooker]

Hi, today I was doing Comparison problem set from the Manhattan GMAT. I have few doubts in the answer provided by the author.

FIRST SENTENCE
1. The tycoon contributed more than to the candidate's campaign than anyone else in the industry.

Answer in Manhattan: The tycoon contribute more to the candidate's campaign than did anyone else in the industry.

Question 1: why the book said 'campaign than did anyone else....' instead of 'campaign than anyone else did in the industry'?

That's according to me sentence should be "The tycoon contribute more to the candidate's campaign than anyone else did in the industry".

What important rule I missing over here?

Question 2: Can we write this same statement as follows:-

The tycoon contributed more than anyone else did to the candidate's campaign in the industry. WHY/WHY NOT?


SECOND SENTENCE
2. Owing a car is still Dan's goal like that of his parents when they were his age.

Answer in Manhattan: Owing a car is still Dan's goal as that of his parents when they were his age.

My Suggestion: Owing a car is still Dan's goal as that of his parents when they were of his age.

IS IT CORRECT? WHY? WHY NOT?

[lunarpower]

a couple of comments

Answer in Manhattan: The tycoon contribute more to the candidate's campaign than did anyone else in the industry.

Question 1: why the book said 'campaign than did anyone else....' instead of 'campaign than anyone else did in the industry'?

That's according to me sentence should be "The tycoon contribute more to the candidate's campaign than anyone else did in the industry".

nope, your version doesn't work here: it creates false parallelism. it makes it appear as though you're saying this: 'the tycoon contributed more to the candidate's campaign than anyone else contributed in the industry.'
obviously this is not what you're trying to say, but remember that you can't use 'common sense' to resolve the meaning of potentially ambiguous gmat sentences. if a sentence has any potential for ambiguity, you have to treat it as ambiguous, even if its meaning can be discerned by anyone with two or more brain cells.

NB: if you don't like the construction 'than did', then two things.
- (1) you have to learn to like this construction; not only is it common in formal written english in general, but it's especially common in sentences that show up on the gmat.
- (2) if you don't like it, the reason you don't is almost certainly because it doesn't show up in SPOKEN LANGUAGE. no one would ever say '...than did...' out loud, unless s/he were reading from a book, magazine, article, etc. however, as you almost certainly know, there are monumentally huge differences between spoken and written english, and the legitimacy of this type of construction happens to be one of those differences.

Question 2: Can we write this same statement as follows:-

The tycoon contributed more than anyone else did to the candidate's campaign in the industry. WHY/WHY NOT?

nope.

if you write that version, you're making it seem as though the candidate's campaign is limited to 'the industry'. since the candidate is not campaigning in the industry, you can't juxtapose 'campaign' and 'in the industry'.
see above comments re: not resolving ambiguities with 'common sense'.

IS IT CORRECT? WHY? WHY NOT?

although it might not be definitively wrong, it's questionable; the established english idomatic usage here is '...when they were his age'. memorize this: if 'age' comes after a possessive - his age, her age, their age, etc. - then you normally don't use 'of'. this goes even in the case of a modifier: 'most people his age are...'
note, though, that if such possessives are absent, then, more often than not, you do want to use the word 'of'. for instance:
nataly, who is 5 years old, is much more interested in music than are most other girls of the same age.
vs.
nataly, who is 5 years old, is much more interested in music than are most other girls her age.

note the differences in construction between these 2 sentences, one with 'of' (and no possessive) and one with no 'of' (and a possessive). also note the necessity of 'than ARE'; try to write the sentence without the 'are' and see if you can explain why it's ambiguous.

hth

[codesnooker]

Thanks Ron,

I was guessing correctly that my question would be responded only by some MH instructor. I can't admit 100% that I understood everything the thing explained by you. But yes, I grasp the concept and hope it will be strengthen with more practice.

PS: I have seen so many people who broke down the problem logically (even I am one of them) but seen someone first time who apply the same technique in the language. I wish, someday I could also able to the same.

Thanks again!