Scientific evidence suggests that the benefits arising from

[tankobe]

Scientific evidence suggests that the benefits arising from consumption of alcohol are greatest with alcohol that is taken with meals on a moderate, regular basis than when it is consumed on binges.

(A) with alcohol that is taken with meals on a moderate, regular basis than when it is consumed
(B) with taking alcohol with meals on a moderate, regular basis as opposed to its consumption
(C) when alcohol is taken with meals on a moderate, regular basis, rather than consuming it
(D) when alcohol is taken with meals on a moderate, regular basis rather than consumed
(E) when alcohol, taken with meals on a moderate, regular basis, and not consumed

source:preptest 2 ; OA is D (highlight!)

i just wander if the sentence is right if i change B to with taking alcohol with meals on a moderate, regular basis rather than with consumpting it ?
in other words, i want to know wether we can use -est with rater than/instead of/as opposed to .etc toghter, since i know it is wrong to use -er with rather than/instead of/as opposed to .etc toghter.

[RonPurewal]

i just wander if the sentence is right if i change B to with taking alcohol with meals on a moderate, regular basis rather than with consumpting it ?

nope. "with" doesn't make sense.

this is a cause-effect description:
when alcohol is taken in this way, this is the result
or
if alcohol is taken in this way, this is the result

"with" doesn't convey that meaning; "when" does.

in other words, i want to know wether we can use -est with rater than/instead of/as opposed to .etc toghter, since i know it is wrong to use -er with rather than/instead of/as opposed to .etc toghter.

that's an insightful question - good job pointing out what you can't do with "-er".

but:
* this is an official problem (or at least it should be, if it's posted in this folder)
* that construction is in the CORRECT ANSWER.

simple but powerful principle:
if it's in an officially correct answer, it's correct.
if it's in an officially correct answer, it's acceptable.
end of story.

[tankobe]

thank you, Ron! your reply indeed do me a favor.

[rana.thakur]

Can someone tell why E is wrong?

[RonPurewal]

Can someone tell why E is wrong?

the clause following "when" has no verb:
...when alcohol, taken with meals on a moderate, regular basis, and not consumed

you need to say "when alcohol IS taken..."; otherwise this clause is not actually a clause at all.

[siddharthaganguly]

Q1)In option D how is 'is taken' (present tense) parallel with 'consumed' (past tense)? Ref:- when alcohol is taken with meals ... rather than consumed on

Q2)Why is option C wrong ? - I marked it correct to find parallelism between present tenses-- though it seems 'a is taken' rather than 'consuming it' - is awkward; please help me to find the correct reason. Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

Q1)In option D how is 'is taken' (present tense) parallel with 'consumed' (past tense)? Ref:- when alcohol is taken with meals ... rather than consumed on

three things:
1) "taken" and "consumed" aren't verbs; they're past participles. both of them are past participles (exactly the same grammatical function), so they're parallel.

2) as long as 2 parallel structures have the same grammatical function, they don't have to be exactly the same.
for instance, it's perfectly acceptable to have, say, a present participle (-ing form) in parallel with a past participle (like "known" or "taken" or "-ed" forms); see OG12 #42 for an example of such a parallel structure. since both structures are modifiers that modify nouns, it's acceptable to place them in parallel.

3) although these aren't verbs, it's still important to know that verbs placed in parallel DON'T have to have the same tense!
verb tense is 100% determined by meaning; verb tense has nothing to do with grammatical constructions.
for instance:
i have won all five games so far and will win all four of the remaining games.
--> 2 parallel verbs; one is in the present perfect (referring to past events), the other in the future tense (referring to future tense). given this context, it would be ridiculous to place these verbs in the same tense, even though they are in a parallel structure.

Q2)Why is option C wrong ? - I marked it correct to find parallelism between present tenses-- though it seems 'a is taken' rather than 'consuming it' - is awkward; please help me to find the correct reason. Thanks.

1) "taken" and "consuming" aren't verbs; they're participles.
2) even if they *were* verbs, they wouldn't have to be in the same tense (see above).
3) you can't use an -ING modifier unless the agent of this action is actually present in the sentence; i.e., if the modifier "consuming" is present, then it must actually modify the person who's consuming the alcohol (e.g., people consuming alcohol in large quantities...)

[siddharthaganguly]

Thanks Ron. Appreciate it.

-Sid.

[jnelson0612]

Great, thanks!

[eggpain24]

HI，ron

I notice that in the non-underlined part there is a superlative word “greatest” → is these construction also render the use of “than” in choice A wrongful？


Also，I am not sure whether the “opposed to” in choice B is legally used here. please confirm

thanks in advance！