fossil fuels

[RonPurewal]

ntr1989512, that's pretty much the idea.

[thanghnvn]

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.

you are wonderfull. Ron.
one more question.

1. in contrast, "that, those" pronoun ONLY refer to persons/things which are different from previous persons/things.

for example,

Leather jackets in India are less expensive than those in Italy are

2. moreover, "that", "those" can not be used as stand alone pronoun. they normally are used in paralel structure.

is my thinking correct?,Manhanan experts, pls confirm the 2 points above.

[tim]

1. in contrast, "that, those" pronoun ONLY refer to persons/things which are different from previous persons/things.

for example,

Leather jackets in India are less expensive than those in Italy are

2. moreover, "that", "those" can not be used as stand alone pronoun. they normally are used in paralel structure.

is my thinking correct?,Manhanan experts, pls confirm the 2 points above.

1. sounds reasonable..

2. wrong. please stop posting the same question in multiple threads, and refer to my answer in the other thread..

[aditya8062]

i am posting the question again as this post is too long :
There are hopeful signs that we are shifting away from our heavy reliance on fossil fuels: more than ten times as much energy is generated through wind power now than it was in 1990.
A) generated through wind power now than it was
B) generated through wind power now as it was
C) generated through wind power now as was the case
D) now generated through wind power as it was
E) now generated through wind power than was the case

Ron i have read all the posts above and i realise that in case of pronoun "it"
we cant just cherry pick the noun and that "it" always refer to the previous noun along with its mofifiers

now i have a following doubt 1: well i do understand that "it" can refer to the noun plus the modifiers directly attached to that noun(as in example that u gave : Leather jackets in India are less expensive than they were 10 years ago.) .what confuses me though is that in this case in option B the modifier "now" is seperated from the noun "energy" by the following text "is generated through wind power"
my question is :if this "it" will still refer to "energy " + "now" in this case
if ur answer to my first question is yes then plz confirm my 2nd following doubt :
option B is wrong for the reason that "it" refers to "energy " +"now" and hence it makes nonsensical in option B
and
not for the reason that Stacey (with all due respect ) had suggested that "it" refers to just "energy" and that when "it" in option B is replaced with " energy" then the phrase "energy was in 1990 " does not make sense (this is what stacey had said ----her first post )
i believe that her explanation is confusing me because i thought that in the later phrase of option B "gererated" was ellipsed and so if i go by her interpretation then the later part of B wud make sense in the following way "than energy was generated in 1990 "

ps: i have no intention to question the veracity of stacey's statement .my only intention is to clear my doubts
Ron kindly help
thanks and regards

[RonPurewal]

regardless of the following modifiers, you still have the essential modifier "more than 10 times as much" attached to energy. so, even if you ignore the following modifiers, you've still got an "it" that's trying to refer to "more than 10 times as much energy".
that doesn't work.

in fact, this kind of thing could never work in a comparison -- for this reason -- unless the "it" refers to something that's not actually part of the comparison.
for instance,
The Atlanta area has more than twice as much traffic as it did ten years ago.
--> here, "it" = "the atlanta area". that's fine, because the atlanta area is not changed by the comparison -- it's exactly the same area in both parts.
if you had a comparison that used "more than twice as much traffic" but then tried to use "it" to stand for "traffic", that would necessarily be nonsense.

[sanjeev.garikapati]

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.

From the above explanation I understood that "it" can just be replaced by "energy" but not by "energy produced" ..but on page 116 of GMAT SC guide 5th edition, the below guidelines are given

You can also omit units, verbs, and even whole clauses from the second term, as long as there is no
ambiguity.
Right: Whereas I drink 2 quarts of milk a day, my friend drinks 3 [quarts].
Right: I walk faster than Brian [walks].
Right: I walk as fast now as [I walked] when I was younger.


Even on page 121, it is give that
A leopard cannot run as fast as a cheetah. is right ...

So in the current question , "it" can just be replaced by "energy produced" Please let me know where I am going wrong...Thanks a ton in advance...

[RonPurewal]

So in the current question , "it" can just be replaced by "energy produced" Please let me know where I am going wrong...Thanks a ton in advance...

the word "produced" doesn't appear anywhere in the problem discussed in this thread. maybe you're posting in the wrong thread?

[sanjeev.garikapati]

My apologies , I mean "energy generated"

[RonPurewal]

Please let me know where I am going wrong...Thanks a ton in advance...

where you're going wrong is that you're thinking about thing #1, but citing examples of completely different thing #2. i hate to say this, but all of the examples you've cited there are irrelevant to the issue.

the issue here specifically concerns the use of pronouns -- exactly what pronouns can or can't stand for.
none of the examples you've cited here contains a pronoun, so they do not pertain to the discussion.

P.S., please try to limit your use of boldface to things that you actually want to emphasize. (if more than 10% of what you write is in boldface, then something is wrong.)
in particular, boldface is an absolutely terrible way to quote citations, because things in boldface ... well, don't look like citations at all. instead, it looks as though you're trying to make a point.
if you want to quote things, just use the "quote" functionality (above the posting field when you're typing). thanks.

[thanghnvn]

I am quite satisfied with the explantion of why the choice are wrong. But I want to learn from the oa C.

Please, explain the use of "the case" more and give more examples. I can not use "the case" when I write a sentence.

Thank you

[RonPurewal]

I am quite satisfied with the explantion of why the choice are wrong. But I want to learn from the oa C.

Please, explain the use of "the case" more and give more examples. I can not use "the case" when I write a sentence.

Thank you

Check this out:
post9046.html#p9046

For a greater variety of examples, just google "is the case" or "was the case" (or "had been the case" or "has been the case" or "will be the case"), and read the examples that you find. Don't pay much attention to examples that come from obviously informal pages.