SC COMPARISON

[Haibara]

You can only write "X is less than Y" if X and Y are mathematical quantities.
E.g., The average weight of fitness models is less than that of bodybuilders. Correct, since "weight" is a mathematical quantity.

If X is something that exists in a smaller quantity than Y, you CANNOT write "X is less/fewer than Y".
Instead, you'd have to find some other way to write the comparison.
There is less X than Y.
These guys have fewer X's than those guys (do).
These guys have fewer X's than Y's.
And so on.

Both wrong.

If the sentence looks like this:
THESE GUYS have more/less X than Y
then there are 2 possibilities, depending on what "Y" is.

1/
"Y" could be another thing that these guys have, comparable to "X". In this case, the parallel structures are "X" and "Y".
He drinks more soda than water.

2/
"Y" could be other people/animals/whatever, corresponding to THESE GUYS.
He drinks more soda than his sister.

So, you could write...
Wild animals have less fat than muscle. (#1)
Wild animals have less fat than livestock. (#2)
That's it.
"That of livestock" doesn't pass either test, even if "that" has a referent.

Ron,I'm so grateful for your kind, patient and detailed clarification.The above comparison patterns are now crystal clear to me. I think I should also thank georgepa. Thanks to georgepa, I've now learned the conditional use of "X is less/fewer than Y" from you.
Also, the two sentences below are both legitimate expressions, right?

e.g.
Alice has cars more than Bob
Alice has more cars than Bob

Again, thank you and your MGMAT team very much.

[georgepa]

Georgepa,

1/
Please stop posting as though you were a moderator.
Thank you in advance.

Oops! Sorry I wasn't aware I was doing that - nor did I mean to. I'll limit my posts from now

[RonPurewal]

Also, the two sentences below are both legitimate expressions, right?
e.g.
Alice has cars more than Bob
Alice has more cars than Bob

No. The first is nonsense.
If "more" is placed after "has X', then it's an adverb. It doesn't describe noun X anymore.
In this sense, it's equivalent to "more often", although, just for the sake of clarity, the "often" will probably be there.

E.g., James has the flu more (often) than Darlene makes sense: James gets sick more often than Darlene does.

For this kind of sentence to work in both ways you've listed, you'd need a fairly "special" context"”namely, one in which "more often" and "greater quantity" both make sense.

E.g.,
James has visited more foreign countries than Darlene. --> If you count the number of countries each has visited, James's number is greater.
James has visited foreign countries more (often) than Darlene. --> James has spent more time visiting foreign countries, and/or has been on more trips abroad.

[RonPurewal]

Georgepa,

1/
Please stop posting as though you were a moderator.
Thank you in advance.

Oops! Sorry I wasn't aware I was doing that - nor did I mean to. I'll limit my posts from now

The distinction is fairly clean.
* Adding commentary to the existing discussion"”or, of course, asking questions of your own"”is fine.
* I'd draw the line at quoting another poster's question and then responding directly to it. That is a moderator's job.

Just as importantly, your response to the poster above contains misinformation"”an outcome that's very likely with SC, even if you are quite good at solving SC problems (which only cover 1 or 2 percent of the potential issues in written English, if even that).

If you're posting in the quant section of the forum, and you're absolutely certain that everything you're posting is completely correct, then, sure, no worries. But please do not attempt to answer other posters' SC questions directly.
If you have a view to contribute to a SC discussion, you may want to hedge with "As far as I know...", etc., just in case the things you write turn out to be less than entirely correct.
(:

Thanks.

[Haibara]

Also, the two sentences below are both legitimate expressions, right?
e.g.
Alice has cars more than Bob
Alice has more cars than Bob

No. The first is nonsense.
If "more" is placed after "has X', then it's an adverb. It doesn't describe noun X anymore.
In this sense, it's equivalent to "more often", although, just for the sake of clarity, the "often" will probably be there.

E.g., James has the flu more (often) than Darlene makes sense: James gets sick more often than Darlene does.

For this kind of sentence to work in both ways you've listed, you'd need a fairly "special" context"”namely, one in which "more often" and "greater quantity" both make sense.

E.g.,
James has visited more foreign countries than Darlene. --> If you count the number of countries each has visited, James's number is greater.
James has visited foreign countries more (often) than Darlene. --> James has spent more time visiting foreign countries, and/or has been on more trips abroad.

Great explanation. Many many thanks! Ron

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[DiZ806]

Wild animals have total fat less than THAT OF LIVESTOCK
Wild animals have less total fat than THAT OF LIVESTOCK

I think both your sentences are wrong. It looks like the THAT refers back to the noun Wild animals in both cases.

X than Y

X and Y need to be parallel

The following are parallel

• The total fat of wild animals is less than the total fat of livestock


• The total fat of wild animals is less than that of livestock

[that clearly refers to the total fat]

Georgepa,

1/
Please stop posting as though you were a moderator.
Thank you in advance.

2/
No. Both of these are incorrect.

You can only write "X is less than Y" if X and Y are mathematical quantities.
E.g., The average weight of fitness models is less than that of bodybuilders. Correct, since "weight" is a mathematical quantity.

If X is something that exists in a smaller quantity than Y, you CANNOT write "X is less/fewer than Y".
Instead, you'd have to find some other way to write the comparison.
There is less X than Y.
These guys have fewer X's than those guys (do).
These guys have fewer X's than Y's.
And so on.

Hi Ron, Could you tell me the differences

rice has protein of higher quality than wheat
rice has protein of higher quality than that in wheat

I look your explanation that the first one wheat is possible parallel to rice and protein.So it is wrong.
But why "that" in the second sentence can not parallel to both rice and protein?
Why I can not understand in the first sentence that" rice has wheat "(if wheat is parallel to protein)is absurd.Rice can not has wheat.So parallel to protein is wrong.and the wheat has to parallel to rice.
So I do not know the difference between the first one and the second one

[RonPurewal]

rice has protein of higher quality than wheat

there are 2 possible interpretations of this sentence:
1/ quality of protein in rice > quality of protein in wheat (rice || wheat)
2/ quality of protein in rice > quality of wheat (protein in rice || wheat)

if you actually know about the macronutrients in these things-- i.e., that wheat is primarily a carbohydrate, and as such can't meaningfully be compared to a protein-- then you can conclude that #2 is basically nonsense.
... but that requires non-trivial outside knowledge ("things that a 10-year-old wouldn't know"). if you don't have that knowledge, the sentence is ambiguous.
hence "that in wheat", to eliminate the ambiguity.

[RonPurewal]

But why "that" in the second sentence can not parallel to both rice and protein?

if that = rice, then you have a sentence that says that rice has better protein than ... rice. that's a contradiction, and so does not count as a possibility.

[RonPurewal]

also, i know i tell this to everyone all the time, but it bears repeating yet again:
DO NOT judge these things individually.
DO judge them relative to other choices.

to judge the choices individually, you need the skill set of a (very good) professional editor. to decide that choice X is better than choice Y, on the other hand, is a much more modest responsibility.

[Gia]

You can only write "X is less than Y" if X and Y are mathematical quantities.
E.g., The average weight of fitness models is less than that of bodybuilders. Correct, since "weight" is a mathematical quantity.

If X is something that exists in a smaller quantity than Y, you CANNOT write "X is less/fewer than Y".
Instead, you'd have to find some other way to write the comparison.
There is less X than Y.
These guys have fewer X's than those guys (do).
These guys have fewer X's than Y's.
And so on.

Hi Ron,

Sorry for opening this thread again. Can you explain more on the Mathematical quantities? And how to understand "X is something that exists in a smaller quantity than Y"? Are the two concept opposite? More example will be great!

Many thanks!

[RonPurewal]

^^ "mathematical quantities" = things that are NUMBERS (height, weight, price, etc).

i've already given a large number of examples, so, "please give more examples" is not a fair request. (you're not asking SPECIFICALLY for anything, there... so, it looks like you're just asking for more examples that work exactly like the ones i already gave. but there's no value in providing redundant examples.)

__

[RonPurewal]

And how to understand "X is something that exists in a smaller quantity than Y"?

the point here ^^ is to make a contrast with situations in which X and Y are actually NUMERICAL QUANTITIES.
e.g.,
The weight of Carol's backpack, together with all the items inside it, is less than that of Darlene's purse.
--> here, we can actually write "X is less than Y"
X = the WEIGHT of carol's backpack
Y = the WEIGHT of darlene's purse
WEIGHTS are NUMERICAL QUANTITIES. this is the only type of situation in which it's ok to write "X is less/more/greater than Y".

sorry if the other part of the contrast was unclear. when i wrote "something that exists in a smaller quantity", that's meant to refer to the THINGS COUNTED/DESCRIBED/MEASURED BY the numerical quantities -- i.e., NOT the numerical quantities themselves.
e.g.,
The number of applicants is much greater than the number of available jobs. <–– THIS SENTENCE IS OK
The applicants are much more/greater than the available jobs. <–– THIS SENTENCE IS INCORRECT

...but, really, you don't even need to make that explicit. you can just think about "numerical quantities" vs. "NOT numerical quantities".
this type of construction ["X is more/greater/less than Y")...
CAN be used if "X" and "Y" are NUMERICAL QUANTITIES
CANNOT be used if "X" and "Y" are ANYTHING OTHER THAN numerical quantities
...and that's all you need.
as long as you understand that applicants and jobs are not numerical quantities (...this should be quite clear), then, you can rest assured that this construction is wrong if it's used for those things.