Although people in France consume fatty foods at a rate

[Haibara]

Ron，would it be correct if Choice E were written as the following:

the rate at which people consume fatty foods is about the same in France as in the US

Also,would it be correct if Choice C were written as the following:

fatty foods are consumed by people in France at a comparable rate to the case in the US is

Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

Don't edit GMAC's sentences.

Don't do it.
Really, don't.

* Most of the time, posters' edits contain errors (usually more than one). These errors are usually things that are not tested by GMAC, leaving us in the awkward position of having to say, "No, that's wrong, but you don't need to know why."

* Even when posters' edits are correct, they are rarely anywhere close to the style of official problems"”again leaving us in an awkward position ("That's not wrong, but you'll never see it").

Your hands should be full enough with the answer choices that are already on the board.

[RonPurewal]

Ron，would it be correct if Choice E were written as the following:

the rate at which people consume fatty foods is about the same in France as in the US

It's technically correct, but it's wordy and stylistically awkward. So, while this doesn't actually contain any errors, you won't see anything like it on the exam. (Compare this one with the correct answer.)

Don't edit GMAC's sentences.

[RonPurewal]

Also,would it be correct if Choice C were written as the following:

fatty foods are consumed by people in France at a comparable rate to the case in the US is

No.

* You can't break up "comparable to". You'd have to have a rate comparable to some other rate.

* "The case", in this sense, is not normally used outside of "is the case" or "is not the case". (If you are talking about a court case, of course, that's a different animal.)

* I'll assume that "is" (at the end) is a typo, i.e., you didn't mean to type "is" there. (If "is" is there, the result is not only illogical, but not even a sentence anymore.)

[Haibara]

Also,would it be correct if Choice C were written as the following:

fatty foods are consumed by people in France at a comparable rate to the case in the US is

No.

* You can't break up "comparable to". You'd have to have a rate comparable to some other rate.

Ron, is it because "comparable to" is a prepositional phrase(like "rather than"，"instead of"...) that we can't broke it apart? Since "comparable to" modifies "a rate", so the second part of comparison should also be a rate? If it is the case, than "comparable to" is so different from other comparison signals like "as much...as..." or "the same... as..."?
Are the following sentences correct?

fatty foods are consumed by people in France at a rate comparable to the rate at which they are consumed by people in the US

fatty foods are consumed by people in France at the same rate as they are by people in the US

I think the second one has some problems that I can't point out or rectify. Please help.

* "The case", in this sense, is not normally used outside of "is the case" or "is not the case". (If you are talking about a court case, of course, that's a different animal.)

* I'll assume that "is" (at the end) is a typo, i.e., you didn't mean to type "is" there. (If "is" is there, the result is not only illogical, but not even a sentence anymore.)

I got the idea of using "the case is" from the problem in the link there-are-hopeful-signs-that-t3322.html?hilit=There%20are%20hopeful%20signs%20that%20we%20are%20shifting%20away
For your convenience, I list it here

There are hopeful signs that we are shifting away from our heavy reliance on fossil fuels: more than ten times as much energy is generated through wind power now than it was in 1990.

A) generated through wind power now than it was
B) generated through wind power now as it was
C) generated through wind power now as was the case
D) now generated through wind power as it was
E) now generated through wind power then was the case

So why can't I use "the case is " here in the sentence quoted at the top of this post, while it can be used in the question listed above? I remember you said "the case is/was" refers to the general concept of the previous clause.

Thank you very much!

Ps. Sorry, I didn't mean to edit GMAC's sentence(though it appears so), I just want to get a more complete and detailed framework about comparison.😔

[RonPurewal]

Ron, is it because "comparable to" is a prepositional phrase(like "rather than"，"instead of"...) that we can't broke it apart? Since "comparable to" modifies "a rate", so the second part of comparison should also be a rate? If it is the case, than "comparable to" is so different from other comparison signals like "as much...as..." or "the same... as..."?
Are the following sentences correct?

I can't help you with the grammar terms, since I don't know them. But, the basic idea is that "to xxxx" is modifying "comparable", and so should be stuck to "comparable".

You can have a noun next to "comparable", but only if the "if" part is absent (because it's implied earlier).
E.g., Since the retirement of the previous court reporter, who could type as fast as 200 words per minute, the county has been unable to find anyone else who can type at a comparable rate.

You can also understand this by just realizing that "comparable to xxxx""”formal grammar aside"”represents a single thought, describing something else. The point of good writing is, in essence, not to break up single thoughts unless it is positively necessary to do so.

[RonPurewal]

fatty foods are consumed by people in France at a rate comparable to the rate at which they are consumed by people in the US

fatty foods are consumed by people in France at the same rate as they are by people in the US

I think the second one has some problems that I can't point out or rectify. Please help.

Both of these are technically correct.

You're not going to see them in polished writing: they are very clunky, and they use lots and lots and lots of words to say something that can be expressed in far fewer words. But they're not wrong.

[RonPurewal]

I got the idea of using "the case is" from the problem in the link there-are-hopeful-signs-that-t3322.html?hilit=There%20are%20hopeful%20signs%20that%20we%20are%20shifting%20away
For your convenience, I list it here

There are hopeful signs that we are shifting away from our heavy reliance on fossil fuels: more than ten times as much energy is generated through wind power now than it was in 1990.

A) generated through wind power now than it was
B) generated through wind power now as it was
C) generated through wind power now as was the case
D) now generated through wind power as it was
E) now generated through wind power then was the case

So why can't I use "the case is " here in the sentence quoted at the top of this post, while it can be used in the question listed above? I remember you said "the case is/was" refers to the general concept of the previous clause.

Take a look at what you quoted (from me), again. It's more literal than you think.

You're not going to see "the case", in this sense, unless it's "is / is not the case".
Note that

"the case" comes AFTER "is"

. You should NOT have a sentence in which "the case" is the subject, unless you are talking about a literal case (e.g., a court case).

Your example has "the case is...", which does not conform. The GMAT prep example has "... was the case", which, as the past tense of "... is the case", does conform.

[RonPurewal]

Ps. Sorry, I didn't mean to edit GMAC's sentence(though it appears so), I just want to get a more complete and detailed framework about comparison.😔

If you're going to do this, you should create your own simple sentences"”ideally containing nothing except the specific construction in question"”from scratch, and then edit those. The GMAC sentences have too many moving parts that are interconnected.

[Haibara]

Ron, thank you very much for your detailed explanation. I benefit a lot.

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[RonPurewal]

If you wanted to be very, very, very precise, you'd use "__ X and Y" to refer to a situation involving X and Y together, and "__ X and __ Y" to refer to two separate situations.

E.g.,
I've worked with Smith and Jones --> All three of us have worked together.
I've worked with Smith and with Jones --> I've worked separately with each of them.

There's no reason to use the second of these unless you want to make clear that you're talking about two separate situations. However, the first is often used for both"”i.e., regardless of whether X and Y were involved together or separately.

I don't know how exact GMAC's usage is on this issue.
Frankly, it doesn't matter. For this exam, the only thing you have to know is that both constructions are OK. There's absolutely no way a problem will test the difference between them.

[AbhilashM94]

Ron,

Is my though process correct?

I used the appositive modifier(AP-M) logic for the most part(after COMMA is appositive)

(A) people in France consume fatty foods at a rate comparable to the United States, their (wrong comparison)
(B) people in France and the United States consume fatty foods at about the same rate, the
(C) fatty foods are consumed by people in France at a comparable rate to the United States’s, their (their must refer to US not US's - AP-M)
(D) the rate of fatty foods consumed in France and the United States is about the same, the (death rate after comma is referring to same - AP-M)
(E) the rate of people consuming fatty foods is about the same in France and the United States, the

I'm only left w/ B & E now. But is my logic good so far?

[jlucero]

Ron,

Is my though process correct?

I used the appositive modifier(AP-M) logic for the most part(after COMMA is appositive)

(A) people in France consume fatty foods at a rate comparable to the United States, their (wrong comparison)
(B) people in France and the United States consume fatty foods at about the same rate, the
(C) fatty foods are consumed by people in France at a comparable rate to the United States’s, their (their must refer to US not US's - AP-M)
(D) the rate of fatty foods consumed in France and the United States is about the same, the (death rate after comma is referring to same - AP-M)
(E) the rate of people consuming fatty foods is about the same in France and the United States, the

I'm only left w/ B & E now. But is my logic good so far?

This isn't an appositive modifier here and if it were, the first part would be the modifier, not the second. Brush up on the topic with the link below:
https://www.manhattangmat.com/articles/ ... itives.cfm

However, don't overwhelm yourself with the names for these things. They will only be helpful if they help YOU better understand what's right and what's not right in the sentence. You'll often hear our instructors use very simple/non-grammarian language to discuss the topics here.

[eggpain24]

Hi，Ron. can you help me shed more light on the understanding of choice C

I spot several errors

1. pronoun ambiguity（compared to correct choice）

well，here → “their” could refer to “people in France”（but this reference is redundancy，since we got “in France” in the non-underlined part）

“their”could refer to “people in US”（poor antecedent，but the meaning of sentence is right ---- still inferior than the correct choice）

2. unclear comparison

people in France at a comparable rate to the United States's

I think ”people in France“ is not strictly parallel to “ United States's）

it would have been better by having ”those in United States“ in place~

please correct me If I am wrong