Some anthropologists regard the early hominids' manner of wa

[rschunti]

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

A as being less efficient than in
B as less efficient than it is in
C as less efficient than that of
D to be less efficient than that of
E to have been less efficient than it is in

The OA is "C". In option "C" what does "that" refer to. Why this option is correct?.

What is wrong with options "B" and "D" are wrong?
The above is GMATprep question.

[rschunti]

PLs can you also reply to some of my earlier posts from GMAT prep:-

http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/the ... t1945.html
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/as- ... t1944.html
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/sci ... t1943.html
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/in- ... t1942.html

[RonPurewal]

'that of' (singular) and 'those of' (plural) are possessive constructions that allow us to write parallel comparisons without the bothersome repetition of specific nouns.

for instance:
Beethoven's symphonies were more revolutionary than Bach <-- wrong, because music is being compared to a person
Beethoven's symphonies were more revolutionary than Bach's symphonies <-- correct, but with bothersome repetition
Beethoven's symphonies were more revolutionary than Bach's <-- ok according to most sources, but i've never seen the gmat use the apostrophe+s for a plural
Beethoven's symphonies were more revolutionary than those of Bach <-- the best way to write this sentence.
in the last of these, 'those of bach' = 'bach's symphonies'.

so, in the problem you've cited, one manner of walking (explicitly written as such) is being compared to another manner of walking (written as 'that of...')

choice b: two problems
- 'it' is troublesome, because it seems to refer back to the early hominids' manner of walking (something that clearly can't be seen in modern human beings)
- bad parallelism: the first part uses a possessive construction, not the preposition 'in', so the second must use a similar construction

choice d:
- bad idiom: you can't say 'regard X to be Y' (just memorize this)

[rschunti]

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"

[RonPurewal]

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.

[Steve66]

Hei Ron,

Thank you very much for your explaination above which helps alot for me to undertand this question, but I am still in trouble with the term'regard as'.

I know that we can say 'somebody regard A as B', in which both 'A' and 'B' are noun.
But the term'less efficient' is a adjective phrase here, I wanna know is there a 'being' understood before 'less' or can we say 'regard something as adj.'?

Thank you

Steve66

[RonPurewal]

can we say 'regard something as adj.'?

yes, you can.

[Steve66]

Thanks very much for the reply, Ron

Steve66

[rfernandez]

We're glad it was helpful.

[redable]

Hi Ron,

I usually feel confused with the "double possessive", such as "A'B of C" or "A of B'C". As is the case, "early hominids' manner of walking", is it ambiguous? Or, manner of walking is a sort of idiom usage?

Thanks for your response~ :)

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron,

I usually feel confused with the "double possessive", such as "A'B of C" or "A of B'C". As is the case, "early hominids' manner of walking", is it ambiguous? Or, manner of walking is a sort of idiom usage?

Thanks for your response~ :)

well ... it appears you're assuming that all "of" constructions are possessives. that's not true.

for instance, here's a more pedestrian example:
joe's favorite flavor of ice cream is chocolate.
see how this works -- "flavor of ice cream" isn't a possessive construction; "manner of walking" is pretty much the same type of thing (and so is "type of thing", for that matter).

[redable]

I got it, thanks! :)

[RonPurewal]

I got it, thanks! :)

glad to help

[morymory_1983]

Hi Ron

I wonder why
early hominids' manner of walking is not plural?
I mean why as less efficient than THOSE of is wrong?

What is the difference between these :
-"early hominids' manner of walking"
-"early hominid's manner of walking"
-"early hominids' manners of walking"
-"early hominid's manners of walking"
Thank you

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron

I wonder why
early hominids' manner of walking is not plural?

you have to understand the context (and use a bit of common sense to interpret the sentence). there's only one "manner of walking", which was shared by the early hominids.

-"early hominids' manner of walking"

= the manner shared by early hominids (this is logical)

-"early hominid's manner of walking"

this implies that there was only one early hominid, so it's nonsense.

-"early hominids' manners of walking"

not logical, unless the early hominids had several different manners of walking.
note that you don't have to make this distinction here.

-"early hominid's manners of walking"
Thank you

also nonsense, because it implies that there was only one early hominid.