The number of people flying first

[RonPurewal]

in general, it's better writing to use "twice" than to use "double" as an adjective. the official sentences don't generally contain bad writing, so, i don't think you would actually see something like that -- but, if you actually DID see something like that, i suppose it would be fine.

[Crisc419]

The simplified expression is: X is twice Y
The word that "that" is replacing is the full noun phrase X: "the amount of money I have"

So the meaning is:
the amount of money I have is twice that (the amount of money I have) you have[/quote]

"that / those'' will not replace the full noun phrase X, only "they/it......" will

[JustinCKN]

Apparently, the second half of the comparison"it involves maths" is a legitimate sentence.

I can see that, but it's fundamentally different. It's been stripped of the intended meaning, and conveys something altogether different.

For instance:
I travel within the U.S. more often than I travel to other countries.
You're right that "I travel to other countries" is a complete sentence"”but it absolutely does not convey the meaning that it does here.
By itself, that sentence suggests that I travel to other countries regularly (in accordance with the normal use of the present tense for discrete activities). In the original sentence, the meaning is very different, suggesting that it's a less regular activity than domestic travel. It may even be quite rare.

Hi Ron:
Two question:
question1:
Is this version of sentence correct?
I travel within the U.S. often than to other countries.

question2:
From the previous post , I know
"in the country, as many people like to read books as people like to watch TV"
"as many people like to read books in country X as do people in country Y"
both incorrect .

Are the modified sentences below Correct?
#3 In the country, as many people like to read books as like to watch TV.

#4 As many people like to read books in country X as like to read books in country Y.
OR
#4 As many people like to read books IN country X AS IN country Y.

Thanks.
Sincerely.
JustinCKN.

[RonPurewal]

Is this version of sentence correct?
I travel within the U.S. often than to other countries.

...no
it should be clear that this sentence is wrong, since there's nothing to go with "than"! (more than? less than?)

[RonPurewal]

#3 In the country, as many people like to read books as like to watch TV.

this is fine.

#4 As many people like to read books in country X as like to read books in country Y.
OR
#4 As many people like to read books IN country X AS IN country Y.

you will definitely never see a sentence like the first one, with all those unnecessary words.

the second makes more sense if it's rearranged: "As many people in country X as in country Y like to read books." (the current version seems to be talking about where people read, rather than which country the people are from.)

...but, again, you are making this needlessly difficult for yourself -- you're trying to learn to WRITE comparison sentences. don't do that!
remember—comparison problems should be RELATIVE judgments.
you'll NEVER have to know how to CREATE a comparison sentence (and it's a total waste of your time to even think about that). all you have to do is COMPARE answer choices.

[750plus]

Dear Ron

Thank you for all the wisdom in the last 10 pages. I have gone through each and every note. However, I'd like to ask you a question that's not answered in any of the pages before.

The number of people flying first class on domestic flights rose sharply in 1990, doubling the increase of the previous year.

(A) doubling the increase of
(B) doubling that of the increase in
(C) double as much as the increase of
(D) twice as many as the increase in
(E) twice as many as the increase of

I have a doubt w.r.t option A. Comma+Verb-ING modifies the previous clause and makes sense with the subject. Here, in this case going by the meaning of the sentence - The increase that happened in 1990 is double the increase that happened in 1989. However, if doubling makes sense with the subject, the number of people, I don't get it.

Why?

Because it is not the # of people who are getting doubled. Infact, it is the increase in 1990 that got doubled.

Please if you can shed some light.

Thank You.

[RonPurewal]

as usual, the point of "comma __ing" is that it DOESN'T directly modify the subject... this is basically the entire reason why the comma __ing construction exists in the first place. if you wanted to write about something the subject directly did... you'd just use a normal subject+verb!

consider any typical example of comma __ing:
I dropped the bags onto the floor, scaring the dogs.
—> would it be accurate to say "i scared the dogs"? no.
—> what actually DID scare the dogs? ... my ACTION of dropping the bags did.

the same kinds of relationships apply here, too.

[NehaM981]

hi

Twice is an adverb so why it cannot modify the action of rise ??

Thanks

[NehaM981]

hi

if you're going to say COMMA + "twice as many as...", then that's incorrect unless there's actually a quantity in front of the comma.
e.g.
last year i read 40 books, twice as many as i read in the preceding year
--> correct
last year the number of books i read increased dramatically, twice as many as i read in the preceding year
--> incorrect

why twice needs a noun close to it to modify but more than does not need a noun and can also modify the verb as in " More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined. "

Please explain ..

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

this isn't a grammar issue—it's an issue of meaning.

if the modifier is "twice xxxxx", then it has to be preceded by the QUANTITY that is actually 2 times something else (as stated in the posts that you quoted). this isn't an issue of nouns vs. other parts of speech.

[SD501]

Hi Ron,

In the reply to this question:
MBA Action wrote:Do we have a split here between "increase in" and "increase of"? or is it a red herring?

you wrote:
genuine split. not red herring.

"the increase in X" means that X itself has increased. therefore, "the increase in the previous year" doesn't make sense, because the implication would be that the previous year itself had increased (what would that possibly mean?).

"the increase of TIME PERIOD", by contrast, means exactly what it should mean in this particular instance.

I agree that "the increase in X" usually means that X itself has increased. But my question is: can "in TIME PERIOD" be viewed as an adverbial phrase of time here? If so, "increase in the previous year" just means SOMETHING happened in the previous year and that SOMETHING is the increase. Can you tell me how I am wrong?

[RonPurewal]

^^ that's actually a valid point (you can read "in the previous year" as a timeframe modifier).

...but, as is basically always the case, these little distinctions are included AS DISTRACTIONS—to punish you for letting your attention drift from MAJOR / FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS.

__

in this problem, "in" vs. "of" is a non-issue, because both choices with "in" have other, much more blatant, errors.

• "that of the increase"
—> there's no noun for "that". (the increase itself was doubled, not "the [NOUN] of the increase")

• "twice as many..."
—> no count numbers are given, so, there's nothing this could possibly describe.

both of these are ground-level, fundamental errors. the first is a matter of knowing the very basics of how pronouns work; the second depends only on the idea that modifiers have to modify something that's actually there.
if you're paying attention to "in"/"of" before THESE things, then this problem—along with many, many, MANY others—is designed SPECIFICALLY to PENALIZE those reversed priorities.

[SD501]

^^ that's actually a valid point (you can read "in the previous year" as a timeframe modifier).

...but, as is basically always the case, these little distinctions are included AS DISTRACTIONS—to punish you for letting your attention drift from MAJOR / FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS.

__

in this problem, "in" vs. "of" is a non-issue, because both choices with "in" have other, much more blatant, errors.

• "that of the increase"
—> there's no noun for "that". (the increase itself was doubled, not "the [NOUN] of the increase")

• "twice as many..."
—> no count numbers are given, so, there's nothing this could possibly describe.

both of these are ground-level, fundamental errors. the first is a matter of knowing the very basics of how pronouns work; the second depends only on the idea that modifiers have to modify something that's actually there.
if you're paying attention to "in"/"of" before THESE things, then this problem—along with many, many, MANY others—is designed SPECIFICALLY to PENALIZE those reversed priorities.

Thank you, Ron! This is very helpful.

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.