GMAT Questions - Soaring television costs accounted for more

[agarwalmanoj2000]

What does it refer to in A

it doesn't stand for anything at all.

the only singular nouns that precede it are "spending" and "the presidential campaign of 1992". clearly, neither of these is an appropriate antecedent, so this choice is just wrong.

, and what does they refer to in C? Can we use have been in C? Please help, thanks!

"they" would have to refer to "soaring television costs", by elimination: there aren't any other plural nouns.

literally, this makes no sense, since television costs weren't "soaring" in OTHER elections.
(note that you MUST take the pronoun to stand for "soaring television costs"; you are NOT allowed to extract just "television costs" and pretend that the pronoun stands only for that.)

"have been" is an even bigger problem, though, since it implies the presence of "accounting". you can't do this unless the word "accounting" is actually present elsewhere in the sentence; it isn't.

Why can't "it" in the original sentence refer to the "proportion", which is also the closest noun, and thus make sense ?

We cannot pick the noun "proportion" out of the noun phrase "a greater proportion" excluding adjective and essential modifier to replace with "it". We can replace "it" with full phrase "a greater proportion" but it does not make sense, so using "it" is wrong.

a greater proportion than "a greater proportion" was in any previous election.

You may refer to the below Ron’s explanation for details -
post39052.html#p39052

[StaceyKoprince]

agarwalmanoj2000, thanks for linking to Ron's other post on this topic.

vailad, go take a look at that and let us know if it clears up your question.

[mcmebk]

Hi ,
In choice B, what two thing we're comparing (if it's not the cost)?
In choice B, it seems to me:
greater X than Y where X & Y are NOT similar things.
X=proportion Y=in any previous election

Can anybody please explain how B is making sense here?

there's ellipsis here. the understood comparison is a repeated instance of "proportion".
in contexts in which you would repeat a noun, you don't have to include the repeated noun; you may merely imply it. this is known as ellipsis.

for instance:
this year's heavyweight champion is shorter than last year's.
here, the second half of the comparison is clearly "last year's heavyweight champion", but you don't have to say "heavyweight champion" again.

Hi Ron,
What is the exact ellipsis that you mentioned here in choice (B)?
You mentioned above :

there's ellipsis here. the understood comparison is a repeated instance of "proportion".

Does this mean choice (B) with ellipsis would read as follows?

"Soaring television costs accounted for X, a greater proportion than (the proportion) in any previous election."

Kindly explain.

-Vaibhav.

Hi Instrutor, I find this question has not been answered, exactly what has been ellipsed here, something about "proportion" (but not a greater portion) or something about "costs did" (not soaring costs).

Is it correct to say "Soaring television costs accounted for X, a greater proportion than (the proportion) in any previous election." here?

And I thought Ron mentioned before that in a parallel structure, only when the ellipsed parts are presented exactly the same in other parts of the structure, can the subjects or verb or objects be ellipsed...but since neither "proportion" nor "costs" can be substituted by "a greater porportion" or "soaring costs", it makes me very confused.

[RonPurewal]

in comparisons, you shouldn't worry about "what has been eliminated" -- you should just look at the stuff in the second half of the comparison, and check whether (a) it makes sense and (b) it's actually parallel to something in the first half of the comparison.

it's very important not to overcomplicate the issue. if you have parallelism (and lack of ambiguity), then, generally, you're good to go. if not, then not.

[zhouyj1089]

Ron,

I got this question in my Prep today and I marked A, reason being I thought "it" in option A is referring back to the "proportion" because "proportion" is a singular term and "it" can go with this term. So, it was like this:

A. a greater proportion than it was..

Here i thought we are comparing the proportion in 1992 to the proportion in previous year and so presence of "was" also made sense to me.
Please correct me where I'm going wrong in this approach?

Thanks!

~GeeMate.

two problems here.

first, you can't have exactly the same noun on both sides of the comparison, so "it" is barred from standing for whatever is in the other half of the comparison.

second, "it" must stand for a noun with all attached adjectives and essential modifiers -- you can't just cherry-pick the noun, leave the modifiers behind, and assume that "it" stands for that noun by itself.

example:
summers in las vegas are hotter than they are in providence.
--> WRONG
the intention here is clearly that "they" should stand for "summers", but it doesn't -- it MUST stand for the entire construction "summers in las vegas", since you are not allowed to discard the essential modifier.
therefore, this sentence unintentionally refers to las vegas summers that are in providence, an absurd notion.

(for people in other countries:
las vegas, nevada, and providence, rhode island, are two american cities that are thousands of miles apart.)

summers are hotter in las vegas than they are in providence.
--> CORRECT ("they" = summers)
this sentence would be better written as just "...than in providence", but it's also fine like this.

I have a quick question here.

Ron said

"first, you can't have exactly the same noun on both sides of the comparison, so "it" is barred from standing for whatever is in the other half of the comparison.

Why can not the sentence have exactly the same noun on both sides of the comparison? Could you give me more explanations and examples please?

Thank you very much!

[RonPurewal]

Why can not the sentence have exactly the same noun on both sides of the comparison? Could you give me more explanations and examples please?

A comparison has to compare two different things. A comparison of something with itself wouldn't make any sense.

E.g.,
The weather in Fresno is nicer than that in Chicago.
This works. "That" is just "weather" (not weather in Miami). We're comparing the weather in two different places.

The weather in Fresno is hotter than it is in Chicago.
Incorrect.
"It", unlike "that" has to be the SAME noun (with all attached qualifiers) -- i.e., the weather in Fresno. So this sentence is talking, absurdly enough, about "the weather in Fresno ... in Chicago".

--

You could have the same noun on both sides of the comparison, as long as SOMETHING is different. Different timeframes, different situations, etc.

E.g.,
The weather in Fresno is hotter now than it was forty years ago.

Here, the noun ("it" = "the weather in Fresno") is exactly the same on both sides. This time the timeframes, not the nouns, are different things.

[zhouyj1089]

Why can not the sentence have exactly the same noun on both sides of the comparison? Could you give me more explanations and examples please?

A comparison has to compare two different things. A comparison of something with itself wouldn't make any sense.

E.g.,
The weather in Fresno is nicer than that in Chicago.
This works. "That" is just "weather" (not weather in Miami). We're comparing the weather in two different places.

The weather in Fresno is hotter than it is in Chicago.
Incorrect.
"It", unlike "that" has to be the SAME noun (with all attached qualifiers) -- i.e., the weather in Fresno. So this sentence is talking, absurdly enough, about "the weather in Fresno ... in Chicago".

--

You could have the same noun on both sides of the comparison, as long as SOMETHING is different. Different timeframes, different situations, etc.

E.g.,
The weather in Fresno is hotter now than it was forty years ago.

Here, the noun ("it" = "the weather in Fresno") is exactly the same on both sides. This time the timeframes, not the nouns, are different things.

Ron, thank you so much for your brilliant explanation!

I want to make sure that I understand it correctly.

Here, in this question, I understand why does "it" refer to "a greater proportion".

So, if I change "it" to "a greater proportion", the sentence will be " a greater proportion than a greater proportion in any previous election."
And this sentence doesn't make sense.

Am i understanding right? Please correct me if i'm wrong.

Thanks again for your kindly help!

[RonPurewal]

That's it, yes.

[zhouyj1089]

Thank you very much!

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome

[ZHUOC614]

first, you can't have exactly the same noun on both sides of the comparison, so "it" is barred from standing for whatever is in the other half of the comparison.


(for people in other countries:
las vegas, nevada, and providence, rhode island, are two american cities that are thousands of miles apart.)

summers are hotter in las vegas than they are in providence.
--> CORRECT ("they" = summers)
this sentence would be better written as just "...than in providence", but it's also fine like this.

hi Ron, you say that "it" can not refer any thing that is on the other part of the comparison, but the latter example you mentioned actually have "they" that represent "summers" in the other part of comparison. In my view, these two sentences are the same kind except "it" is for singular noun and "they" is for the plural form.

I know you are always right. But I just want to make sure I grasped correctly what you said. Hoping for your kind reply!

Thanks!

[momo32]

Dear Ron，

Why choice D is wrong？

THX

[RonPurewal]

Dear Ron，

Why choice D is wrong？

THX

"Which" doesn't work; at most, it can apply to "the presidential election of '92".

"Was so" is not parallel to anything.

[chetan86]

Hi Ron,

After POE, I left with options A and B.
I eliminated A because it has full clause "it was in any previous election", and I was aware that this question is testing "Comparison" concept so ellipses would play big role in option B.

Could you please explain whether later part of option A creates run-on sentence?

Thanks!!

[thanghnvn]

Ron, pls, help
can I say that all three choice A ,C and E have elipsis. the second half of the three choices contain a form of "to be", the first half must contain a form of "to be". there is not any form of
to be in the first half. so, all of them are wrong

very hard and fast rule

is that correct?