SC: Adam Smith

[priyankur.saha]

Need explanation on below question.
A leading figure in the Scottish enlightenment, Adam Smith’s two major books are to democratic capitalism what Marx’s Das Kapital is to socialism.

A. Adam Smith’s two major books are to democratic capitalism what
B. Adam Smith’s two major books are to democratic capitalism like
C. Adam Smith’s two major books are to democratic capitalism just as
D. Adam Smith wrote two major books that are to democratic capitalism similar to
E. Adam Smith wrote two major books that are to democratic capitalism what

Using elimination process, I got D and E and later opted D because "similar to" is idiomatic (MGMAT SC Idiom list). However, I got my answer wrong because answer was E. Could you explain me why "similar to" is wrong?

[RonPurewal]

Need explanation on below question.
A leading figure in the Scottish enlightenment, Adam Smith’s two major books are to democratic capitalism what Marx’s Das Kapital is to socialism.

A. Adam Smith’s two major books are to democratic capitalism what
B. Adam Smith’s two major books are to democratic capitalism like
C. Adam Smith’s two major books are to democratic capitalism just as
D. Adam Smith wrote two major books that are to democratic capitalism similar to
E. Adam Smith wrote two major books that are to democratic capitalism what

Using elimination process, I got D and E and later opted D because "similar to" is idiomatic (MGMAT SC Idiom list). However, I got my answer wrong because answer was E. Could you explain me why "similar to" is wrong?

ah, yes, idiomatic expressions. how cute.

"similar to" is an idiomatic expression, but not within the context here.
if you use "similar to", it stands alone: X is similar to Y. you can add modifiers, etc., to this - X is similar to Y in that both of them do Z --> but the fact remains that "similar to" is a standalone idiom.

the correct answer to this problem includes the first form of the following idiom, which takes two common forms:
* X is to Y as A is to B.
* X is to Y what A is to B.
this idiom is used to show ANALOGY. if you've ever seen analogy problems on a standardized test (the ones that look like "X : Y :: A : B"), that's the idea.

since the analogy construction already corresponds to the idea of "analogy", under which the idea of similarity is subsumed, the use of similar to constitutes redundancy and is thus incorrect.

[priyankur.saha]

Marvellous. Thanks for nice explanation on distinction.

[JonathanSchneider]

: )

[sharmin.karim]

Why is A wrong then? Does the possessive form not work appropriately? Or is it the "are" making the first comparison plural and the second singular?

Please explain. Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Why is A wrong then? Does the possessive form not work appropriately? Or is it the "are" making the first comparison plural and the second singular?

Please explain. Thanks!

(a), (b), and (c) can all be eliminated immediately because they start with "Adam Smith’s two major books", not just "Adam Smith".

the initial modifier - "A leading figure in the Scottish enlightenment" - is supposed to modify Adam Smith himself, so "Adam Smith" (not his books) MUST follow the comma.

[christina.susie.wong]

What throws me off about this entire sentence is that it says "Marx's Das Kaptial". This is not paraellel to "Adam smith wrote two major books."

So when you try to make parallel "A is B what X is to Y" it's not paraellel.

Adam smith wrote two books (A) that are to capitalism (B) what Marx's Das Kaptial (X) is to socialism (Y)
Can you please expalin when paraellism is not important when comparing or how to dissect this?

Second question: when is "what" appropriate mid-sentence? Is it only used in comparasions or can it be used to introduce subordinate clauses too?

[RonPurewal]

What throws me off about this entire sentence is that it says "Marx's Das Kaptial". This is not paraellel to "Adam smith wrote two major books."

So when you try to make parallel "A is B what X is to Y" it's not paraellel.

Adam smith wrote two books (A) that are to capitalism (B) what Marx's Das Kaptial (X) is to socialism (Y)
Can you please expalin when paraellism is not important when comparing or how to dissect this?

the left-hand parallel structure is just "two major books", not "adam smith wrote two major books".
in order to determine this, you actually have to start with the right-hand parallel structure ("marx's das kapital"), since that one follows a signal word but the left-hand structure doesn't.

for a more in-depth treatment of this topic, see here:
post25465.html#p25465

for a MUCH more in-depth treatment, see the may 13 recording here:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/thursdays-with-ron.cfm

Second question: when is "what" appropriate mid-sentence? Is it only used in comparasions or can it be used to introduce subordinate clauses too?

this isn't really a logical question -- it seems to be predicated on the assumption that "comparison" and "subordinate clause" are alternative options.
they aren't; "comparison" is a semantic category (i.e., having to do with meaning), while "subordinate clause" is a grammatical category (strictly having to do with grammar, independently of meaning).
since that's a lot of big words, and thus may be difficult to follow, here's an analogy: when you say "is it only used in comparisons, or can it also be used in a subordinate clause?", that's like asking "do i have to wear red, or could i wear pants?"
you see what i mean -- one of them is a question of color, while the other is a question of which type of garment. it doesn't make sense to put them in opposition to each other.

in general, though, "what" is used to create clauses that function as nouns. (i have no idea whether these would be classified as subordinate clauses, but that's irrelevant as long as you know how they are used.)
example:
i don't know what you are talking about.
--> note that "what you are talking about" is an entire clause that functions as if it were a single noun.

note also that these clauses can be used in a comparison:
what the parents want to eat should be considered more important than what the children want to eat.
--> correct comparison between two of these clauses (in the analogy above, this is a pair of red pants... heh)

hope that helps