Laos has a land area

[RonPurewal]

and the "many of whom..." clause modifies "4 million people", as such clauses are wont to do.

I am unable to understand the meaning of this part - as such clauses are wont to do.

oh, i was just being fancy (for no particularly good reason).

you can just read that as "as such things generally do".
(i'm sure this was obvious from the context, but now you have confirmation.)

[RonPurewal]

can you please comment in which grammar category they fall and where they are used. I think this is a Good question to study that split.

'grammar categories'? no clue. i don't know any grammar terms beyond the basic parts of speech (noun, verb, etc.)
but that's irrelevant anyway.

comma + 'many of whom' works just like comma + 'who(m)'.
both have the same restrictions as 'which' (click here).
the only difference is 'who(m)' = PERSON vs. 'which' ≠ PERSON.

[RonPurewal]

'many of them' is more flexible.
like 'many of whom' it CAN refer to the thing in front of it (e.g., The flood destroyed thousands of books, many of them first editions.)
however, it can also describe more distant things, such as the subject (e.g., Twenty undocumented passengers arrived at the port, many of them refugees from Country X.)

also note—
• 'them' can refer to either people or things. (conveniently, i wrote one example of each.)
• 'many of them', when used as a modifier, CANNOT be the subject of a verb. (if you have 'many of them + VERB', that's not a modifier—that's a whole sentence!)

[RichaChampion]

'many of them' is more flexible.
like 'many of whom' it CAN refer to the thing in front of it (e.g., The flood destroyed thousands of books, many of them first editions.)
however, it can also describe more distant things, such as the subject (e.g., Twenty undocumented passengers arrived at the port, many of them refugees from Country X.)

also note—
• 'them' can refer to either people or things. (conveniently, i wrote one example of each.)
• 'many of them', when used as a modifier, CANNOT be the subject of a verb. (if you have 'many of them + VERB', that's not a modifier—that's a whole sentence!)

Thank you so much Ron sir. I have taken a note of this.

Ron sir I have a doubt in the usage of although. There are two questions One from OG13 and one from Official Guide Verbal second edition, but those forms are blocked can i post my doubt here on this forum.

[RonPurewal]

it's possible that your question is already addressed in this post (or in the post(s) following it):
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p113091

if so...
...great!

if not...
...then you'll have to find a way to ask your question without quoting the OG text. (also, in this case your question would not belong in the current folder; it would belong in the general verbal folder.)

[CrystalSpringston]

Hi, Ron

I don't understand the use of "that" in E.

In another post you answered,(this one: http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/can ... t4278.html), you said that "you can't use parallel constructions with "those"/"that"/etc unless they are EXACTLY PARALLEL to whatever shows up in the other part".

So why the "that" in E is correct? I think in E the first part does not contain a "of sth" structure, but the second part uses a "that of" structure. Why is it correct?

good eyes.

i'll amend that post -- after seeing this example, i think that the more exact rule is that the parallel structures should match exactly, if they occur in different clauses. if they're right next to each other in the same clause (as in your example), then there's more leeway for not-so-exactly-parallel constructions.

Hi Ron, I have the same question.
Regarding the structure: A has more B than..., what are the acceptable paralleling parts after than?
According to my knowledge, we can say:

(the intended meaning is both A and C have B, but A has more)

1) A has more B than C has(does)
2) A has more B than that/those of C
3) A has more B than C( if it is obviously absurd to compare B and C)

Whether the above sentences are legitimate in GMAT? Any other ones?
And pls help to point out the priority levels of them?(which one is the best? and next)

This is common in SC problems and bothers me a lot.

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

(the intended meaning is both A and C have B, but A has more)

1) A has more B than C has(does)
2) A has more B than that/those of C
3) A has more B than C( if it is obviously absurd to compare B and C)

#1 and #3 work.
#2 does not work, because it mistakenly compares 'A' with 'that/those of C'. (you have specified that the correct comparison is between 'A' and 'C'.)

[RonPurewal]

And pls help to point out the priority levels of them?(which one is the best? and next)

'priority levels' do not exist.

[CrystalSpringston]

(the intended meaning is both A and C have B, but A has more)

1) A has more B than C has(does)
2) A has more B than that/those of C
3) A has more B than C( if it is obviously absurd to compare B and C)

#1 and #3 work.
#2 does not work, because it mistakenly compares 'A' with 'that/those of C'. (you have specified that the correct comparison is between 'A' and 'C'.)

But according to the correct answer of the prblem discussed in this thread, "that of" is acceptable. That's why I am puzzled. Pls help.

Laos has a land area comparable to that of Great Britain but a population of only four million
people, many of whom are members of hill tribes ensconced in the virtually inaccessible mountain valleys of the north.

[RonPurewal]

ah, see, this sentence does not fit your template.

your template is 'A has more stuff than B'.
if the sentence were actually written this way, then 'that of' would be incorrect.
Laos has more land area than Country X (correct)
Laos has the same land area as Country X (correct)
*Laos has more land area than that of Country X (incorrect)
*Laos has the same land area as that of Country X (incorrect)

on the other hand, this sentence is
Laos has a land area comparable to that of Great Britain.

the core sentence is just Laos has xxxx. this is NOT a comparison sentence; it is perfectly possible to write 'Laos has xxxx' if xxxx is just one thing.
the comparison structure exists within the blue part, and does not involve the subject 'Laos'. (the comparison structure is an area comparable to [another area].)

by contrast, note that the four sentences above MUST be comparisons. (it is impossible to write Laos has more xxxx or Laos has the same xxxx as a stand-alone sentence.)

[CrystalSpringston]

ah, see, this sentence does not fit your template.

your template is 'A has more stuff than B'.
if the sentence were actually written this way, then 'that of' would be incorrect.
Laos has more land area than Country X (correct)
Laos has the same land area as Country X (correct)
*Laos has more land area than that of Country X (incorrect)
*Laos has the same land area as that of Country X (incorrect)

on the other hand, this sentence is
Laos has a land area comparable to that of Great Britain.

the core sentence is just Laos has xxxx. this is NOT a comparison sentence; it is perfectly possible to write 'Laos has xxxx' if xxxx is just one thing.
the comparison structure exists within the blue part, and does not involve the subject 'Laos'. (the comparison structure is an area comparable to [another area].)

by contrast, note that the four sentences above MUST be comparisons. (it is impossible to write Laos has more xxxx or Laos has the same xxxx as a stand-alone sentence.)

Thank you Ron. It is crystal clear now!!

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[aflaamM589]

Hello Ron,

there were 50 women, many of whom were brunettes

there were 50 women and many of whom were brunettes
--> and is inappropriate.
Further, it is not even a sentence.

there were 50 women and many of them were brunettes
--> and is inappropriate
--> but it is at least a sentence, and do not contain sentence structure error.

there were 50 women, many of them were brunettes
--> run on

there were 50 women, each one of whom was a brunette-->redundant


Ron, is my understanding here of the issue correct?

[RonPurewal]

accurate, yeah

[aflaamM589]

accurate, yeah

God bless you