There are hopeful signs that

[kedieez967]

(2) the pronoun 'it' is inappropriate, because 'it' must refer to the ENTIRETY of the noun phrase serving as an antecedent.
for instance, the following is an improper sentence: last year's attendance was ten thousand greater than it was this year
in the above sentence, the pronoun 'it' must necessarily refer to last year's attendance, not just attendance.
the problem in this post has the same issue: the pronoun 'it' must refer to more than ten times as much energy, not just energy - an interpretation that makes no logical sense. therefore, all answer choices containing the pronoun 'it' are wrong.

Hi ron, sorry for bumping. There is a prep problem, which is similar to the above problem.

According to a 1996 survey by the National Association of College and University Business Officers, more than three times as many independent institutions of higher education charge tuition and fees of under $8,000 a year than those that charge over $16,000.

A) than those that charge
B) than are charging
C) than to charge
D) as charge
E) as those charging

the correct answer is D.

in d, the omitted subject before charge is they, so use the logic that you stated above, they must represent more than three times as many independent institutions of higher education . problems are coming, for the sentence flaws in both meaning and grammar.

Could you help explain the paradox? Thank you very much!

PS. sometimes i find that the official problem is not rigorous, so we should choose a better answer. As in this case, the other choices clearly flaw in grammar.

[RonPurewal]

there is no "omitted subject".
so, the problem you're describing does not exist.

(when people talk about an "omitted subject", that implies that one could add that subject into the sentence. that's not possible here.)

• do not think about "omitted items" in comparison sentences.
• DEFINITELY do not perform a grammatical analysis of something that's not actually there!

[RonPurewal]

PS. sometimes i find that the official problem is not rigorous, so we should choose a better answer.

no. if you think this, then you are wrong.

the official correct answers, which are the products of several rounds of editing and scrutiny, are VERY well written, and it's both incorrect and presumptuous to claim otherwise.

DO NOT QUESTION THE OFFICIAL ANSWERS.
instead, you should be asking "what don't i understand?" ...and then you'll actually learn things.

[kedieez967]

there is no "omitted subject".
so, the problem you're describing does not exist.

(when people talk about an "omitted subject", that implies that one could add that subject into the sentence. that's not possible here.)

• do not think about "omitted items" in comparison sentences.
• DEFINITELY do not perform a grammatical analysis of something that's not actually there!

hi, Ron

It looks very weird to compare two verbs, the latter verb without a subject. I do understand that the comparison is between the number of institutions that charge tuition and fees of under $8,000 and the number of institutions that charge under over $16,000. So the doer of second verb are the institutions of high education that charge over 16, 000.

can i rephrase the sentence as follows?
more than three times as many independent institutions of higher education charge tuition and fees of under $8,000 a year than those charge over $16,000.
OR
more than three times as many independent institutions of higher education charge tuition and fees of under $8,000 a year than institutions of high education charge over $16,000.

The rephrased sentence seems more grammatical understandable and more clear in meaning.

many thanks in advance.

[kedieez967]

there is no "omitted subject".
so, the problem you're describing does not exist.

(when people talk about an "omitted subject", that implies that one could add that subject into the sentence. that's not possible here.)

• do not think about "omitted items" in comparison sentences.
• DEFINITELY do not perform a grammatical analysis of something that's not actually there!

hi, ron

it is weird that the second verb is without a subject. But the comparison is between the number of institutions that charge tuition and fees of under $8,000 and the number of institution that charge over $16,000. Clearly, the institution that charge over $16,000 is the subject.

could i rephrase the sentence as follows:
more than three times as many independent institutions of higher education charge tuition and fees of under $8,000 a year than those charge over $16,000.
OR
more than three times as many independent institutions of higher education charge tuition and fees of under $8,000 a year than institutions of high education charge over $16,000.

the rephrased sentence seems more clear in meaning.

thank you very much for your kindly reply

[RonPurewal]

there is no "omitted subject".
so, the problem you're describing does not exist.

(when people talk about an "omitted subject", that implies that one could add that subject into the sentence. that's not possible here.)

• do not think about "omitted items" in comparison sentences.
• DEFINITELY do not perform a grammatical analysis of something that's not actually there!

hi, ron

it is weird that the second verb is without a subject. But the comparison is between the number of institutions that charge tuition and fees of under $8,000 and the number of institution that charge over $16,000. Clearly, the institution that charge over $16,000 is the subject.

could i rephrase the sentence as follows:
more than three times as many independent institutions of higher education charge tuition and fees of under $8,000 a year than those charge over $16,000.
OR
more than three times as many independent institutions of higher education charge tuition and fees of under $8,000 a year than institutions of high education charge over $16,000.

the rephrased sentence seems more clear in meaning.

thank you very much for your kindly reply

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p113659

please DO NOT double-post.
we answer posts strictly in order from oldest to newest, so double-posting will not get you an answer any sooner. it will do nothing other than (a) dilute the content of the forum, and (b) annoy the moderators.

also, please try to post under one user id.

thanks!

[aflaamM589]

If we use "that" instead of "it", will it correct the sentence? Since "it" must refer to the same thing and "that" can refer to another instance.

no, since there is no construction that is properly parallel with "that in 1990".

here are two illustrations:

* the air quality of las vegas in 2007 was higher than that in 1997
--> CORRECT
note the perfect parallelism
(the air quality of las vegas) (in 2007)
parallel to
(that) (in 1997)

* the air quality of las vegas was higher in 2007 than that in 1997
--> INCORRECT
this isn't parallel; the left-hand structure is interrupted by a verb, while the right-hand structure contains no such verb.

Hello Ron,
Is the following correct?
the air quality of las vegas was higher in 2007 than that had been in 1997

[RonPurewal]

no, you would still use "it" there.
it = the air quality of las vegas.

remember—if you CAN use "it" or "they", then you CAN'T use "that" or "those".

[PengG163]

no..

Umm...But for this sentence I met in prep, two adverbial phrases are comparing: In no other historical sighting did Halley’s comet cause such a worldwide sensation as in its return of 1910-1911.
why we could omit "subject + verb" in this sentence, but couldn't in this thread's question?

right -- note that there is no tense change here.
if you added a verb, you'd have
in no other sighting did the comet cause ... as it did in its return ...
that's why the verb is unnecessary here; it would be the same helping verb in the same tense.

more analogues:

i can run as fast on grass as on concrete
i can run as fast on grass as i can on concrete
--> both correct (no tense change)

but...
i can run as fast now as in high school --> incorrect, since i'm not in high school anymore.
i can run as fast now as i could in high school --> correct, with the necessary tense change.

the following sentence also shows highly succinct:
According to public health officials, in 1998 Massachusetts became the first state in which more babies were born to women over the age of thirty than under it.

same deal.
no tense change, so you don't need to repeat the verb.

Dear Ron, I have carefully learned your explanation about the comparison, first, thank you very much for all those precious knowledge.

Regarding this specific problem, as you said, if there is a tense change, you need to repeat the verb. However, I found some violations in OG16. I type out the question but please kindly check OG16-90 and OG16-104.

In OG16-90, the OG explanation of A said it is illogical to compares prices to time past. Although OG does not explicitly said that "since tense changed, you should repeat the verb", it is understandable that OG does not appreciate this kind of writing.

However, InOG16-104, the OA is B, whose structure is almost the same with answer A of OG16-90, and fails to repeat the verb even though the tense changed.

Can you please explain this deviation ? Thank you very much.

Cheers,

[RonPurewal]

that's a non-issue, since there are no choices which DO include the verb.

again, same advice as always: comparisons are RELATIVE JUDGMENTS.
• find the comparison signal
• find the item after the signal (here, "than")
• figure out what matches it
• if the match isn't there, eliminate
• among the surviving choices, if there are BETTER matches, eliminate the WORSE ones.

in that problem, there are two choices that don't use "than", and two non-matches, so, you are done. there's no issue.

[NehaM981]

hi

i don't understand why that is wrong here -

the air quality of las vegas was higher in 2007 than that in 1997
--> INCORRECT

Is it because it is referring just to the air quality and not the air quality of las vegas ??

Thanks
Neha

[RonPurewal]

hi

i don't understand why that is wrong here -

the air quality of las vegas was higher in 2007 than that in 1997
--> INCORRECT

Is it because it is referring just to the air quality and not the air quality of las vegas ??

Thanks
Neha

^^ my best attempt at explaining this is on the first page of this thread. here's a link to that post:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... tml#p39671

please spend some additional time looking at that post. that's honestly the best i can do, as far as explaining this -- i even color-coded the parallel and non-parallel parts.
in the second example, note that the two parts aren't constructed like each other. (there's a verb in the middle of one of them, but not the other.)