In no other historical sighting

[rx_11]

Hi, ron,

Thank you for your great explanation and I finally know why A & D are wrong, because they both compared the wrong elements "the Halley’s Comet" and "its return", which make no sense.

However, I don't understand why there are no omissions in this sentense. For example, you cited this sentense: "I was heavier at age 14 than at age 18", But can't we add something like: "I was heavier at age 14 than I was at age 18"?

The same as: In no other historical sighting did Halley’s Comet cause such a worldwide sensation as it did in its return of 1910-1911. (Hypothesize that "it" in this sentense clearly refers to Halley's Comet)

Could you plz clarify this?

Thanks very much :)

[RonPurewal]

However, I don't understand why there are no omissions in this sentense. For example, you cited this sentense: "I was heavier at age 14 than at age 18", But can't we add something like: "I was heavier at age 14 than I was at age 18"?

those would both be fine, although the second is needlessly wordy (since the first works, with fewer words, and is just as clear).

The same as: In no other historical sighting did Halley’s Comet cause such a worldwide sensation as it did in its return of 1910-1911. (Hypothesize that "it" in this sentense clearly refers to Halley's Comet)

again, those would both be fine, although this one is needlessly wordy and therefore somewhat inferior. (don't worry; you won't be forced to choose between such options on the test. there will be no such thing as a problem in which you have to choose between two perfectly correct answers.)

i'm not clear on exactly what question you are asking here.
it seems as though you're operating on the assumption that only one of these versions can be correct -- i.e., from your post, it seems that you think that if one of these versions is correct, then the other must be incorrect.
that's definitely not true; there are all kinds of sentences that can be correctly written in multiple ways. (if there weren't, then there would be no such thing as different writing styles!)

[hiphopdidi7623]

orignial correct sentence
=>
In no other historical sighting did Halley's comet cause such a worldwide sensation as (Halley’s comet caused / did cause a worldwide sensation) in its return of 1910-1911.

recover from the backward structure
=>
Halley’s comet caused such a worldwide sensation in no other historical sighting as in its return of 1910-1911.

1.Is the recovery correct?
2.does my ellipsis correctly place to where it belong?

thanks, i really need to figure out the structure.

[RonPurewal]

orignial correct sentence
=>
In no other historical sighting did Halley's comet cause such a worldwide sensation as (Halley’s comet caused / did cause a worldwide sensation) in its return of 1910-1911.

recover from the backward structure
=>
Halley’s comet caused such a worldwide sensation in no other historical sighting as in its return of 1910-1911.

1.Is the recovery correct?

eeeehhhh ... well, yes, but, really, the answer to this question depends on what you mean by "correct".

it's "correct" in the sense that it is grammatically legitimate, and also in the sense that it correctly conveys the intended meaning. it's likely that this is all you're asking; if so, then yes.

on the other hand, if you are asking whether this is a legitimate, well-written english sentence, the answer is no -- the overall form of this sentence would not be idiomatically acceptable.

so, basically, here's what i'm saying:
* if you are just trying to confirm your understanding of the original sentence, then the answer to your question is yes.
* if you are trying to create another sentence that could legitimately be a solution to an SC problem, then the answer is no.
in general, despite the rather ironic name "sentence correction", you should never attempt to create new sentences -- you should just try to understand the correctness or incorrectness of the five choices that are placed in front of you.
like any other language, the english language has way too many idiosyncratic, idiomatic rules that are only truly understood by native speakers; if you aren't native speaker of english but you try to reconstruct a complex sentence on your own, you are very highly likely to run afoul of some of those rules. worse yet, many of them are extremely difficult -- practically impossible -- to explain; for instance, native speakers would consider "a big red truck" idiomatically correct, but would consider "a red big truck" idiomatically incorrect. this distinction has no basis whatsoever in grammar OR meaning; it's just the way in which english is and isn't used by native speakers.

2.does my ellipsis correctly place to where it belong?

thanks, i really need to figure out the structure.

your ellipsis correctly explains what has been removed, yes.

[poonam.khatri]

Ron,

The only reason I felt uncomfortable with the OA on this question is because of the 'of' in "in its return of 1910-1911". Isn't "return in" the correct way of saying it? Even in the OG explanation it says "Grammatically, the items being
compared are parallel prepositional phrases
beginning with the preposition in: in no other
sighting and in its return in 1910-1911."

Please help.

Thanks!

[shaw.s.li]

I was also caught with the "of", but I think the difference is the following.

Typically, for any one year, you would say XX in 1910.

However, for a range, it is more correct to use "of" because it isn't a particular year, but period of time range.

At least, that was my thought to understand why of is still correct.

[RonPurewal]

Ron,

The only reason I felt uncomfortable with the OA on this question is because of the 'of' in "in its return of 1910-1911". Isn't "return in" the correct way of saying it? Even in the OG explanation it says "Grammatically, the items being
compared are parallel prepositional phrases
beginning with the preposition in: in no other
sighting and in its return in 1910-1911."

Please help.

Thanks!

the "of" is used to avoid the construction "X in Y in Z". the gmat writers (like other good writers) generally use constructions that avoid such bothersome repetitions.

i've also written about this topic at the following 3 threads:
post35013.html#p35013
post35020.html#p35020
post36088.html#p36088

[shaw.s.li]

Thanks for pointing that out Ron. Really helpful even if I may have a difficult time catching that on the test.

[RonPurewal]

Thanks for pointing that out Ron. Really helpful even if I may have a difficult time catching that on the test.

sure

[vivi____he]

In no other historical sighting did Halley's comet cause such a worldwide sensation as did its return in 1910-1911.
A.did its return in 1910-1911
B.had its 1910-1911 return
C.in its return of 1910-1911
D.its return of 1910-1911 did
E.its return in 1910-1911

I have a problem understanding the OG explaination of choice E:"This sentence violates parallelism, implying a comparison between a prepositional phrase and a noun phrase."

my question is: why is "its return in 1910-1911"--a noun phrase--compared with "In no other historical sighting " rather than "a worldwide sensation"--the object?

i think:
1, when there is a predicate in the adverbial clause of comparison,the comparision is between subjects.
2,when there is no predicate in the adverbial clause of comparision and is an object in the main clause, the comparision is between objects.
3,when there is preposition in the adverbial clause,the comparision is between prepositional phrases.

please correct me if i'm wrong...

[RonPurewal]

my question is: why is "its return in 1910-1911"--a noun phrase--compared with "In no other historical sighting " rather than "a worldwide sensation"--the object?

choice (e) is written with "such a worldwide sensation as its return..." -- implying that the return was the worldwide sensation.
that's not the correct; the intended meaning is that the comet caused a sensation IN its return, a sensation that was greater than any of the sensations that it caused IN its previous returns.

in general, you can't evaluate comparisons until you know what the sentence is intended to compare in the first place.

i think:
1, when there is a predicate in the adverbial clause of comparison,the comparision is between subjects.
2,when there is no predicate in the adverbial clause of comparision and is an object in the main clause, the comparision is between objects.
3,when there is preposition in the adverbial clause,the comparision is between prepositional phrases.

please correct me if i'm wrong...

i can't tell whether you are right or wrong -- because i don't know all of the terminology that you're using here -- but i suspect that you are wrong, because you are not addressing the intended meaning of the sentence.
for instance:

In no game this season has Harold made such a spectacular play as in last year's championship game --> correct; the intended comparison is between the two games.

In no game this season has Harold made such a spectacular play as last year's championship game --> incorrect; the intended comparison is between the two games, but the sentence mistakenly classifies last year's championship game as "a spectacular play".

In no game this season has Harold made such a spectacular play as in his kickoff return at the last minute of last year's championship game --> incorrect; the intended comparison is that the kickoff return WAS a spectacular play, but the sentence mistakenly makes a comparison between "in no game" and "in his kickoff return".

In no game this season has Harold made such a spectacular play as his kickoff return at the last minute of last year's championship game --> correct; the intended comparison is that the kickoff return WAS a spectacular play.

if you apply your "pure grammar rules" above, then you are going to be mistaken about one of #1 and #3 here; they are grammatically the same, but #1 conveys the intended meaning and #3 doesn't. similarly, your "pure grammar rules" will be wrong about one of #2 and #4, the former of which fails to convey the intended meaning but the latter of which succeeds in doing so.

[sachin.w]

I dont understand why A is wrong..
did in A stands for caused and it does seem parallel to me..

Somebody please help me understand why A is wrong

[tim]

"did" is not the issue here. try rewriting the sentence:

"Halley's comet caused such a worldwide sensation in no other historical sighting as ..."

Now it should be clear that the "in" clauses need to be parallel, not the "did" clauses..

[xiaonvhai123]

Ron,
reading the thread, I've alreadt understood that the scentence is trying to compare " in no other historical sighting" VS "in its returen of 1910-1991".

However, I have another question on the comparision. According to your lecture, if the parallel TAG only have one component, we should read from right to left.
Example:
Most fossils were found in T or in K-correct
Most fossils were found in T or K -also correct
we can omit the second "in" before K.

So, In this question, Can I also omit the preposition in the second part of the comparision structure?
like this:
in no other historical sighting as its returen of 1910-1991 ?

So I choose E finally...T T
Would you like to explain this..?

[RonPurewal]

Ron,
reading the thread, I've alreadt understood that the scentence is trying to compare " in no other historical sighting" VS "in its returen of 1910-1991".

However, I have another question on the comparision. According to your lecture, if the parallel TAG only have one component, we should read from right to left.
Example:
Most fossils were found in T or in K-correct
Most fossils were found in T or K -also correct
we can omit the second "in" before K.

So, In this question, Can I also omit the preposition in the second part of the comparision structure?
like this:
in no other historical sighting as its returen of 1910-1991 ?

So I choose E finally...T T
Would you like to explain this..?

the problem with choice (e) is that it's also open to interpretation as a different (and, in fact, more compact) structure -- namely, the form such a/an X as Y.
e.g., i have never met such a hard worker as your brother.

under this interpretation, choice (e) -- such a worldwide sensation as its return... -- acquires an incorrect meaning.