Some anthropologists regard the early hominids' manner of wa

[jyothi h]

Thanks Ron for explanation. I have one more doubt to clraify:-

In Choice "b" as you have said "t" is referring to "the early hominids' manner of walking". In Choice "c", "that" is referring to only "manner of walking". So why this rule is different for "it" and "that". Why "it" can not refer to just "manner of walking" as the case is with "that"

in choice c, 'that' is part of the construction THAT OF, which indicates a possessive construction (in which 'that' stands for the thing being possessed). in choice b, by contrast, 'it' is not part of any possessive construction, and therefore must stand for the noun that is the main focus of the preceding clause (which in this case is the early hominids' manner of walking).

analogy:
beethoven's symphonies were more revolutionary than those of bach <-- possessive construction: those of bach = bach's symphonies
beethoven's symphonies were more revolutionary in his time than they are now <-- still referring to beethoven's symphonies, which are the main focus of the preceding clause

hope that helps.

Hi Ron,

I initially picked C , but then ruled it out , cos I attributed "THAT" to refer to subject "early hominids' manner of walking" , and none of the other options seemed right.
I think I now understand why THAT of works perfect in C . Consolidating my understanding , as per your above posts , so I make sure I got the concepts right and haven't misinterpreted ( most of it is repeat of what you have written) .
beethoven's symphonies were more revolutionary than those of bach
"Those/That " need not ( does not? ) refer to the subject , but rather thing possessed .

Symphonies of Beethoven were more revolutionary than those of Bach . - Up until now , I was under the impression that "Those of /That Of" needed this exact parallel construction in the first half of the sentence( which is why I was skeptical about C .)

Whereas , usage of "It"(early hominids' manner of walking ) and "They" ( beethoven's symphonies) in the examples you mentioned above, would have to refer to the subject .

Appreciate , if you can confirm on this.

Thanks,
Jyothi

[jyothi h]

Thanks Ron for explanation. I have one more doubt to clraify:-

In Choice "b" as you have said "t" is referring to "the early hominids' manner of walking". In Choice "c", "that" is referring to only "manner of walking". So why this rule is different for "it" and "that". Why "it" can not refer to just "manner of walking" as the case is with "that"

in choice c, 'that' is part of the construction THAT OF, which indicates a possessive construction (in which 'that' stands for the thing being possessed). in choice b, by contrast, 'it' is not part of any possessive construction, and therefore must stand for the noun that is the main focus of the preceding clause (which in this case is the early hominids' manner of walking).

analogy:
beethoven's symphonies were more revolutionary than those of bach <-- possessive construction: those of bach = bach's symphonies
beethoven's symphonies were more revolutionary in his time than they are now <-- still referring to beethoven's symphonies, which are the main focus of the preceding clause

hope that helps.

Hi Ron,

I initially picked C , but then ruled it out , cos I attributed "THAT" to refer to subject "early hominids' manner of walking" , and none of the other options seemed right.
I think I now understand why THAT of works perfect in C . Consolidating my understanding , as per your above posts , so I make sure I got the concepts right and haven't misinterpreted ( most of it is repeat of what you have written) .
beethoven's symphonies were more revolutionary than those of bach
"Those/That " need not ( does not? ) refer to the subject , but rather thing possessed .

Symphonies of Beethoven were more revolutionary than those of Bach . - Up until now , I was under the impression that "Those of /That Of" needed this exact parallel construction in the first half of the sentence( which is why I was skeptical about C .)

Whereas , usage of "It"(early hominids' manner of walking ) and "They" ( beethoven's symphonies) in the examples you mentioned above, would have to refer to the subject .

Appreciate , if you can confirm on this.

Thanks,
Jyothi

Adding to my above post , does "That of/Those of" , need the exact form to be present in the other half of the sentence , only in comparision sentences .
I found a few posts by ron which talks about "That of"
the population of argentina is more than ten times that of uruguay. - correct

the number of people in argentina is more than ten times as large as that is in uruguay. - incorrect .

I may have mixed up lots of concepts on the above .

Ron, could you please help on this.

Thanks,
-Jyothi

[RonPurewal]

Not necessarily. As long as you can find the antecedent in the other half of the comparison, the comparison is ok.

E.g.,
I like to use silverware of better quality than that found in restaurants.
This sentence is fine; it compares one type of silverware with another. The qualifiers aren't written in exactly the same way, but that's immaterial.

Of course, if both parts CAN be written in exactly the same form, then you should pick a choice that writes them in exactly the same form.
But -- don't forget -- the problems are multiple-choice. Just pick the choice with the best match, and don't worry about a hypothetical "perfect" match that may or may not actually exist.

[jyothi h]

Not necessarily. As long as you can find the antecedent in the other half of the comparison, the comparison is ok.

E.g.,
I like to use silverware of better quality than that found in restaurants.
This sentence is fine; it compares one type of silverware with another. The qualifiers aren't written in exactly the same way, but that's immaterial.

Of course, if both parts CAN be written in exactly the same form, then you should pick a choice that writes them in exactly the same form.
But -- don't forget -- the problems are multiple-choice. Just pick the choice with the best match, and don't worry about a hypothetical "perfect" match that may or may not actually exist.

Got it ! Thank you for the clarification , Ron .

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[750plus]

Can you please explain why option (A) is incorrect.


Is it because the comparison here is incorrect?

Some anthropologists regard the early hominids' manner of walking as being less efficient than in modern
human beings.

Is hominids' manner of walking compared to modern human beings or am I interpreting it incorrectly.

Regards
Rajat Gugnani

[RonPurewal]

there's no parallelism.

for that choice to work, you'd have to have something like
Walking was less efficient in early hominids than it is in modern humans.

don't over-complicate this problem. the correct choice has absolutely perfect parallelism; this choice is nowhere close.

[RonPurewal]

also, "as being less efficient" isn't idiomatic.

even if you don't know that idiom, it should be absolutely clear that "...as less efficient" is superior.

[aflaamM589]

Hello Experts,
Is this SC representative of modern GMAT?
regard X to be Y is integral to solve it.
Best

[tim]

I believe the rule you are referring to still holds, if that is what you're asking.

[RonPurewal]

Hello Experts,
Is this SC representative of modern GMAT?
regard X to be Y is integral to solve it.
Best

well, now you know this, so you are fine either way.
(you regard something as something else ... you don't "regard something to be something else")

[aflaamM589]

Thank you gurus,
Have a nice day

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.