Residents of Iqaluit, the largest town in the Canadian

[madhukara77]

Could you kindly help out with below questions -

[text edited]
Residents of Iqaluit, the largest town in the Canadian territory of Nunavut, pay as much as four times the prices paid for grocery items by residents of large Canadian cities, most of which enter the town only by sealift.
A the prices paid for grocery items by residents of large Canadian cities
B the price of what large Canadian city residents pay for grocery items
C what residents of large Canadian cities pay for grocery items
D of what large Canadian city residents pay for grocery items
E the cost of the grocery items purchased by large Canadian cities’ residents

I understand , choice D is incorrect because the phrase "large Canadian city residents" is not very clear. It appears as in the residents are large. So C is a clear winner here, however i couldn't understand why the usage of "of" in option d is incorrect.
For Example- please let me know which one of below is correct -

1 - I paid four times as much as 25 USD?
2 - I paid four times as much as of 25 USD?

If 2 is absolutely wrong and not acceptable then I am clear. My concepts were wrong. If 2 is acceptable then kindly explain why usage of "of" is incorrect in D.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Please read the forum guidelines before posting: we ask that you post the entire problem to aid discussion in the thread.

1 - I paid four times as much as 25 USD?
2 - I paid four times as much as of 25 USD?

Both these sentences are incorrect. Something like 'I paid four times as much as Eva did' would work here. However, it looks like you've got confused by the construction in the problem (as the question-setter hoped you would!). It says 'as much as four times'. Here, 'as much as' simply adds that the prices might not be exactly four times higher, but will be up to four times higher.

A simpler and correct version of the construction used is: 'I paid four times what Eva did'. The sentence 'I paid four times of what Eva did.' is incorrect.

[SaloniS905]

Hello,

Can someone please explain why the usage of 'of' in option D is incorrect? I have gone through the explanation given above and am still not able to understand. If we ignore the word play in the phrase 'large Canadian city residents', why is the option D incorrect.

Residents of Iqaluit, the largest town in the Canadian territory of Nunavut, pay as much as four times of what[the price] large Canadian city residents pay for grocery items, most of which enter the town only by sealift.

Here what can refer to the price and this sentence will make sense?
Kindly help understand please. I came across this question during my mock and no forum solution has been able to resolve it.

Thanks for your time!

[esledge]

“Four times of (an amount)” is incorrect idiom, as the “of” is not necessary: the correct idiom would be “Four times (an amount).”

You are right that “what residents … pay” can be the amount. The error in (D) is really just that the “of” shouldn’t follow “four times”---a noun should.

[JbhB682]

Just to underststand why large Canadian city residents is incorrect

What is the difference between these two statements ?

Source : myself

1) Large canadian city Residents pay 10 $ for a pizza
vs
2) Residents of large canadian cities pay 10 $ for a pizza

I thought both of these were both equivalent.

[esledge]

What is the difference between these two statements ?

Source : myself

1) Large canadian city Residents pay 10 $ for a pizza
vs
2) Residents of large canadian cities pay 10 $ for a pizza

I thought both of these were both equivalent.

Note that in (2), "of" shows possession of "residents," so for these examples to be the same, the equivalent part in (1) needs to be in possessive form: Large Canadian city's residents pay $10 for a pizza.

Let's use an actual city to make it more realistic: Montreal's residents pay $10 for a pizza.

This reminds me of a separate, similar discussion we had recently about how "Residents of Montreal" might still be preferable phrasing: Residents of Montreal pay $10 for a pizza.

If I saw a split between these two on the test, I think they are both ok even though I prefer "residents of Montreal," so I go looking for another split altogether.

[JbhB682]

Hi Emily - so if i undersand your correctly,

Residents of Montreal is the same as Montreal's Residents (there may be some difference but it is too subtle)

Just curious, how is Montreal residents different from Residents of Montreal (OR Montreal's Residents ) ?

[esledge]

Yes, I slightly prefer Residents of Montreal to Montreal's residents, but both could be ok.

I can't think of a way "Montreal residents" would ever be used (use one of the other two phrasings above, instead). This third option tries to use "Montreal" as an adjective, which some nouns can do (example: high-rise residents), but maybe this one can't because it's a proper noun...just speculating, though.

[HowardW442]

@esledge
Is there a pronoun replacement of some sort that *what* is supposed to mean in B and C. trying to see where is this specifically in the ALL the V book. or is this too basic that it will be in the fundamental of verbal?

I am used to the usage of things *like* I could do what Johnny could or I have been confused with what little knowledge I have on grammar. I assume what is a subject that could also be used as a pronoun?
(*hopefully I used like correctly here, was just reading a response you had on a post here: https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... GN7e18H_28)

[StaceyKoprince]

Good question! The word what is a type of pronoun, but it does not typically have a specific noun in the sentence to which it is referring. Rather, it's a replacement for some unstated thing: what = "the thing that" or "the thing which."

Examples:

1. What I need from the company is a raise! (The thing that I need from the company...)
2. I can do what Johnny can do. (I can do the thing that Johnny can do.)
3. You pay four times what I pay for rent. (You pay four times the amount that I pay for rent.) [In this case, I used amount rather than thing, because we can infer that the sentence is talking about a dollar amount.]

In all of these cases, it's not actually necessary to have another noun elsewehere in the sentence that explicitly spells out what this thing is. (Well...the second one is vague enough that I don't actually know what you're talking about. So the real test wouldn't use something like this. In the real world, there'd be another sentence that told you what Johnny could do.) The word what, when used in this way**, is correct if you can substitute "the thing that" (or a word other than thing that is appropriate for that sentence, as I did with amount in #3).

So I'd think of the word what used in this kind of context as similar to the Placeholder It pronoun that All the Verbal talks about. (I don't have my book handy right now to give you a page number, but it's in the pronouns chapter.) You don't need to find a corresponding noun in the sentence.

Also, on the "like" thing: Officially, "like" means "similar to" and "such as" means "for example." The test used to test us on that rule, but over the years, it has become so common to use like to mean for example in the real world that the test appears to have stopped testing this. So really, you don't have to worry about that one anymore.

**The word what can also be used in different ways, such as the beginning of a question. But the GMAT doesn't format SC as actual questions, so again, don't need to worry about this one.