fossil fuels

[phuonglink]

The pronoun "it" has to refer to a noun elsewhere in the sentence. What noun is the antecedent? Energy? So the sentence would read "more than ten times as much energy... as energy was in 1990"? (The antecedent should be able to replace the pronoun and the sentence should still work. And that doesn't work.) Elim B and D.

hi, is it because the "energy in 1990" is not exactly kind of "the energy now" (as it is more than ten times) that we can't use "it" in the underlined words? And that's why we eliminate (b) and (d) to vote for (e)
Can someone help me with my question?

[tim]

No, it's because it makes no sense to talk about the "energy was in 1990", because that option doesn't explain what the energy was in 1990. The incorrect answers effectively try to compare energy to energy, which is not what we need here. Instead, we need to compare amounts of energy..

[rite2deepti]

Could you clarify why the answer cannot be E ; I was stuck between C and E

[RonPurewal]

Could you clarify why the answer cannot be E ; I was stuck between C and E

if you plug (e) back into the sentence, you'll notice that it has an illegal combination: "ten times as much ... than".

this is the sort of thing that would be really obvious if i put those words in close proximity to each other -- for instance, if i just wrote "ten times as much than" in one piece.
however, since the test writers are a tricky bunch, they make this obviously wrong idiom non-obvious, by splitting it into two parts -- one of which is way up top, in the non-underlined part, while the other is all the way down in the answer choice.

they actually do this quite often.
if you ever see a choice between AS and THAN, check very carefully the idioms you get when each answer choice is substituted back into the complete sentence.

[phuonglink]

No, it's because it makes no sense to talk about the "energy was in 1990", because that option doesn't explain what the energy was in 1990. The incorrect answers effectively try to compare energy to energy, which is not what we need here. Instead, we need to compare amounts of energy..

Thanks Tim, it is very clear to me now. That's why correct answer should include "be the case" not "energy" alone to refer to the whole phrase. Your elucidation makes sense indeed.

[jnelson0612]

Thank you everyone.

[wnxie.zju]

I am confused with "it" though i have read through the explanations

The pronoun "it" has to refer to a noun elsewhere in the sentence. What noun is the antecedent? Energy? So the sentence would read "more than ten times as much energy... as energy was in 1990"? (The antecedent should be able to replace the pronoun and the sentence should still work. And that doesn't work.) Elim B and D.

hi, is it because the "energy in 1990" is not exactly kind of "the energy now" (as it is more than ten times) that we can't use "it" in the underlined words? And that's why we eliminate (b) and (d) to vote for (e)
Can someone help me with my question?

No, it's because it makes no sense to talk about the "energy was in 1990", because that option doesn't explain what the energy was in 1990. The incorrect answers effectively try to compare energy to energy, which is not what we need here. Instead, we need to compare amounts of energy..

if "it" refers to "energy", does the "energy was in 1990" make sense because "generated" is omitted to avoid redundancy?

Also, if I change B into "generated through wind power now as", will b be right? I think the comparison is between the amount of energy generated in two different times.

Thank you!

[tim]

"generated" is not omitted to avoid redundancy. it is necessary here. and you go down a dangerous path when you ask whether making some change would make a sentence correct. most sentences have multiple errors that make such an inquiry futile. and of course you should remember that SC is never about finding correct sentences anyway; it's about finding four wrong choices and eliminating them..

[ntr1989512]

Hi Stacey,

If C could read "more than ten times as much energy is generated now... as (energy) was generated in 1990", why couldn't B?
more than ten times as much energy is generated now... as it(energy) was (generated) in 1990.
I believe that I have seen some OG questions omitted the passive verb in comparison sentences. For instance, OG10#234, Inuits of X were isolated from...longer than were inuits of Y.
Am I missing something?
Thanks in advance.

When stuck, try making up a few simpler sentences:

(a) I have 10 times as many MP3s as my father. OK
(b) I have 10 times as many MP3s as was the case before I bought a computer. Awkward but OK.
(c) I have 10 times as many MP3s as I had MP3s before I bought a computer. BAD. Wrong.

Why is (c) so bad? You are comparing the number of MP3s (I now have 10 times as many). By repeating the noun (MP3s) and verb (had), it sounds like you are saying that what is 10 x is greater is not the number of MP3s but having the MP3s. It doesn't make sense. In Stacy's explanation, the energy is implied, but restating it (or replacing it with 'it') really confuses the sentence, just as my example in (c) is really confusing.

But boy, this one is nasty!!!!

Hi jwinawer
I'm sorry, I'm really confused your sentence "I have 10 times as many MP3s as I had MP3s before I bought a computer", since I had seen a sentence from prep math "the farm has more than twice as many cows as it has pigs". could you reply me why the latter sentence is right but the former is wrong? wait your help.
thanks for advances

[ntr1989512]

in the question, now is adv, but in 1990 is adj.

no, this isn't the issue. the "in 1990" is legitimately adverbial in all five choices; the problems lie elsewhere, as articulated upthread.

in particular, you're claiming that the "in 1990" in ...it was in 1990 is adverbial, and that's not true - especially in the context of a comparison:
the average house price is higher than it was in 1990.
here, "in 1990" is clearly adverbial; it modifies the clause "it was".

the primary issues with choice (a) are:
* "than" (which can't be used idiomatically with "X times as much"),
* "it" (which doesn't have an antecedent).

note that "it" in my example above, by contrast, does have a legitimate antecedent.

Hi ron
it is OK to fix your sentence "the average house price is higher than it was in 1990" into "the average house price is higher than in 1990"? I know you said that if the sentence omit verb, then the omited verb should be assumed to be in the same tense as its parallel counterpart. BUT I just see many opposite samples in some threads such as" I walk as fast now as (I walked) when I was younger." from manhattan gmat guide 8 and "The products prices are higher this year than (the prices were) last" from OG. so I want you help me clarify it.
in addition, I don't know why B is worng. IN b i think "it" refer to energy just as prior post said and "generated" is omited.
wait your reply
thanks in advances

[ntr1989512]

in the question, now is adv, but in 1990 is adj.

no, this isn't the issue. the "in 1990" is legitimately adverbial in all five choices; the problems lie elsewhere, as articulated upthread.

in particular, you're claiming that the "in 1990" in ...it was in 1990 is adverbial, and that's not true - especially in the context of a comparison:
the average house price is higher than it was in 1990.
here, "in 1990" is clearly adverbial; it modifies the clause "it was".

the primary issues with choice (a) are:
* "than" (which can't be used idiomatically with "X times as much"),
* "it" (which doesn't have an antecedent).

note that "it" in my example above, by contrast, does have a legitimate antecedent.

ron
why can't "it" refer to energy?

[agarwalmanoj2000]

ron
why can't "it" refer to energy?

[/quote]

"It" cannot refer to energy because the sentence does not make sense. Lets replace "energy" with "it" and see -

...more than ten times as much energy is generated through wind power now than "energy" was in 1990.

Sentence does not make sense, so "it" cannot refer to energy.

HTH.

[ntr1989512]

ron
why can't "it" refer to energy?

"It" cannot refer to energy because the sentence does not make sense. Lets replace "energy" with "it" and see -

...more than ten times as much energy is generated through wind power now than "energy" was in 1990.

Sentence does not make sense, so "it" cannot refer to energy.

HTH.

I know that, but the question is why can't we see "generated" is omitted after the "was"?since omitted word is ok if the sentence has a same word presenting in somewhere of the sentence.

[RonPurewal]

basically, when you use the pronoun "it" (or "he" or "she" or etc.), you are talking about the same noun, with the same modifiers/qualifiers, as in that noun's earlier appearance.

for instance, if you say "people in Texas are more ADJ than they were 10 years ago", then "they" MUST refer to "people in Texas". it's not possible for "they" to signify only "people".

here are a couple more examples.

Leather jackets in India are less expensive than they are in Italy.
--> incorrect, because "they" would have to refer to "leather jackets in India". it's not logical that those could be in italy at the same time.

Leather jackets in India are less expensive than they were 10 years ago.
--> this is fine, because you are actually talking about leather jackets in India in both instances.

Leather jackets are less expensive in India than they are in Italy.
--> this is also fine, because "they" is just "leather jackets" this time.

hope this makes more sense.

[ntr1989512]

basically, when you use the pronoun "it" (or "he" or "she" or etc.), you are talking about the same noun, with the same modifiers/qualifiers, as in that noun's earlier appearance.

for instance, if you say "people in Texas are more ADJ than they were 10 years ago", then "they" MUST refer to "people in Texas". it's not possible for "they" to signify only "people".

here are a couple more examples.

Leather jackets in India are less expensive than they are in Italy.
--> incorrect, because "they" would have to refer to "leather jackets in India". it's not logical that those could be in italy at the same time.

Leather jackets in India are less expensive than they were 10 years ago.
--> this is fine, because you are actually talking about leather jackets in India in both instances.

Leather jackets are less expensive in India than they are in Italy.
--> this is also fine, because "they" is just "leather jackets" this time.

hope this makes more sense.

ron, you are so helpful.
according to your explanation, B is wrong, because "it" refter to "energy now", the meaning of the choice b is
"generated through wind power now as (it=energy now) was in 1990." that make no sense. my interpretation is right ??