Comparisons and skipping words

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Hi,

For the most part, I believe that I have a good grasp on parallelism and comparisons but I ran into a question that has me stumped. A snippet out of the problem:

1) While it costs about the same to run nuclear plants as other types of power plants
-From my understanding, the above sentence has false comparison as it's comparing "cost to run nuclear plants" vs. "other plants"(instead of the cost to run other plants). I was under the impression that whenever we see "as", it meant literal comparison and we couldn't backfill it with implied verbs such as "(to run) other plants". After reading a few explanations, it seems that my understanding is wrong. Can you please help explain why?



2) While the cost of running nuclear plants is about the same as for other types of power plants
-When I read this, I compared "cost of running x" to "cost of FOR y" which didn't make sense, therefore, I marked this off as well. Wrong decision as this answer seems to pass the comparison test. Can't figure out why?

In addition, I'm a little confused as when to use "of x as of/for y" vs. emitting the "for/of" and letting it be implied.


EDIT: Another instance of this --

1) Heating prices will rise higher this year than last year's
My thought process: This is wrong from a parallelism standpoint, I can see that, but does this actually logically compare the two things in question, the prices? Yes, it does.

2) Heating prices will rise higher this year than last
My thought process: Prices are being compared to a year which is wrong. How can prices be compared to a year? Or wait, is this an instance of a missing verb that i'm supposed to imply "prices will rise higher this year than last (year's prices)?


Thanks in advance.

[RonPurewal]

Comparison/parallelism is a "beauty contest". Trying to evaluate these things in individual choices is a huge mistake.

The power plant thing is from an OG problem (which can't be reproduced here), so here's a quick summary.

• There's no better version. At the end of the day, this is what matters.
If there were a choice containing "the cost of running nuclear plants ... that of running other types of plants", then, sure, you'd take that one. But there isn't.

• "It costs the same to run X plants as Y plants" is a respectable construction. But that one appears only in a choice with a clear subject-verb problem.

So, there you go.

[RonPurewal]

1) Heating prices will rise higher this year than last year's
My thought process: This is wrong from a parallelism standpoint, I can see that, but does this actually logically compare the two things in question, the prices? Yes, it does.

If the context works, this can work. E.g.,
Tom's stocks will appreciate more this year than Laura's.

As in the case of other parallelism signals, the thing AFTER "than" must be included. In the sentence above, for instance, we must be comparing something with "Laura's".
On the other hand, you have considerable freedom in terms of where the left-hand item is located. As long as it's clear in context, you're fine.

Your sentence with "last year's" is grammatically sound, but it's nonsense. (It implies that last year's prices are going to rise THIS year. That's impossible, since they're, well, last year's prices.)

[RonPurewal]

2) Heating prices will rise higher this year than last
My thought process: Prices are being compared to a year which is wrong. How can prices be compared to a year? Or wait, is this an instance of a missing verb that i'm supposed to imply "prices will rise higher this year than last (year's prices)?

Do not think of comparisons in terms of "missing" words.

In most cases, this is an inaccurate way of considering the situation.
If there were actually "missing" words, then it would be possible to put those words back in. But, in most cases, that's not possible.

E.g.,
In New York, more people walk than drive to work.
There are no "missing words" here. It is impossible to add additional words to this sentence without re-structuring the whole thing.

The point is to keep it simple.
• Find the right-hand part of the comparison.
• Use context to determine what you need on the left to match it.
• See if that matching thing is there.

Here, "last [year]" needs "this year". "This year" is there, so you're good.

[Chi HoC263]

Hi Ron, I have a question related to the second "that" in answer choice A and C. Much appreciate if you could answer my question.

In answer choice A and C, they are saying that "it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes it more expensive..." and "it is the fixed costs that stem from building nuclear plants that makes the electricity..." respectively.

How do I know the second "that" in the 2 sentences are referring to "fixed costs" but not the noun immediately preceding them? Is it just solely based on logical meaning?

[RonPurewal]

How do I know the second "that" in the 2 sentences are referring to "fixed costs" but not the noun immediately preceding them?

^^ by common sense.

if these things were based on mechanical rules, then SC would be in the quant section. the whole point of the verbal section is that the problems require human thinking.

[RonPurewal]

...and, while common sense is amply sufficient to settle this issue, there's also the issue of the overall structure of the sentence. if you assign "that" to the closer noun, then you have a sentence that, overall, just says "it is xxxx". that's nonsense; the sentence needs to say "it is xxxx that do/does yyyy".

[AndyH539]

Comparison/parallelism is a "beauty contest". Trying to evaluate these things in individual choices is a huge mistake.

The power plant thing is from an OG problem (which can't be reproduced here), so here's a quick summary.

• There's no better version. At the end of the day, this is what matters.
If there were a choice containing "the cost of running nuclear plants ... that of running other types of plants", then, sure, you'd take that one. But there isn't.

• "It costs the same to run X plants as Y plants" is a respectable construction. But that one appears only in a choice with a clear subject-verb problem.

So, there you go.

Hi Ron,
So, either "as" or "as for" does not make it correct or incorrect?

Thanks
Regards
Andy

[RonPurewal]

that question is answered precisely (and exhaustively) by the stuff you quoted directly above it.

[MoriofMay]

Dear instructors,
Recently, I have been indulged in "Thursday with Ron", which is a extreamly useful instruction for me.
There is a question about helping verb bothering me. In the tutorial, Ron gave an example sentence that "I know more about Shakespeare than my brother who hasn't learned british literature does" Then he told us that the placement of helping verb is awkward, and this is where you would put an action verb. In my understanding, following sentence would be OK. "I know more about Shakespeare than my brother who hasn't learned british literature knows."
Do I undertand the idea conveyed by Ron correctly?

Thanks in advance!

[RonPurewal]

yes, that's basically what i was saying.

HOWEVER,
you will NEVER be tested on where to put the helping verb. that placement is a style issue, and style isn't tested on this exam.

so, the only thing you need to know is that, for helping verbs, both placements are possible.

[CrystalSpringston]

...and, while common sense is amply sufficient to settle this issue, there's also the issue of the overall structure of the sentence. if you assign "that" to the closer noun, then you have a sentence that, overall, just says "it is xxxx". that's nonsense; the sentence needs to say "it is xxxx that do/does yyyy".

Hi Ron,
I's like to know except for the problems of the non-parallelism and subject-verb in C, is there any other problem?
The Correct answer uses "while" to show the contrast, but I think the "even though" also works.
Besides, is it fine to use such structure "it is XXX that do YYY" here?

I also see this structure in other SC problems, but I am not sure how to use it properly. Pls help.

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

i've discovered that this is an OG problem, so we cannot continue to discuss it here.