Which one of the following is more correct and why?
10 times as much energy is generated through wind power today as was the case 10 years ago.
10 times as much energy is generated through wind power today as it was 10 years ago.
GMAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
- telatela
- RonPurewal
- Students
- Posts: 19744
- Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
you'd have to go with the first one, although the issue is not with the "as ... as" construction; both of the sentences pair "as" with another "as", as they're supposed to.
instead, the issue with the second sentence lies in the use of the PRONOUN "it".
when the pronoun's antecedent is a NOUN PLUS MODIFIERS/QUALIFIERS/ADDED DESCRIPTION OF ANY KIND, then the pronoun must refer to THE SAME NOUN PLUS MODIFIERS/QUALIFIERS/ADDED DESCRIPTION.
you can't just pick out the noun while leaving the description behind.
e.g.
The air quality of Las Vegas in 2007 was higher than it was in 1997.
wrong
because "it" is committed to the entire noun phrase "the air quality of las vegas in 2007". therefore, the sentence implies that the 2007 air quality was somehow measured in both 2007 and 1997.
this, by the way, is the reason why the pronoun 'that' exists. 'that' is used to stand for a noun WITHOUT the attached context/qualifiers/modifiers.
e.g.,
The air quality of Las Vegas is higher than that of Houston.
CORRECT
note that you can only use 'that' where the use of 'it' is incorrect.
if 'it' works, then you CANNOT use 'that'.
--
The air quality of Las Vegas was higher in 2007 than it was in 1997.
acceptable
here, "it" stands for the entire noun phrase "the air quality of las vegas", which actually makes sense this time: the air quality of las vegas was measured in both 2007 and 1997.
of course, we can just write The air quality of LV was higher in 2007 than in 1997, but then we couldn't use that example to illustrate pronoun usage. (:
--
on this problem, the second part is problematic because "it" MUST refer to the entire noun phrase "10 times as much energy". the problem is that, ten years ago, it wasn't ten times as much energy, so the sentence is literally saying that ten times some quantity is the same quantity. that makes no sense.
instead, the issue with the second sentence lies in the use of the PRONOUN "it".
when the pronoun's antecedent is a NOUN PLUS MODIFIERS/QUALIFIERS/ADDED DESCRIPTION OF ANY KIND, then the pronoun must refer to THE SAME NOUN PLUS MODIFIERS/QUALIFIERS/ADDED DESCRIPTION.
you can't just pick out the noun while leaving the description behind.
e.g.
The air quality of Las Vegas in 2007 was higher than it was in 1997.
wrong
because "it" is committed to the entire noun phrase "the air quality of las vegas in 2007". therefore, the sentence implies that the 2007 air quality was somehow measured in both 2007 and 1997.
this, by the way, is the reason why the pronoun 'that' exists. 'that' is used to stand for a noun WITHOUT the attached context/qualifiers/modifiers.
e.g.,
The air quality of Las Vegas is higher than that of Houston.
CORRECT
note that you can only use 'that' where the use of 'it' is incorrect.
if 'it' works, then you CANNOT use 'that'.
--
The air quality of Las Vegas was higher in 2007 than it was in 1997.
acceptable
here, "it" stands for the entire noun phrase "the air quality of las vegas", which actually makes sense this time: the air quality of las vegas was measured in both 2007 and 1997.
of course, we can just write The air quality of LV was higher in 2007 than in 1997, but then we couldn't use that example to illustrate pronoun usage. (:
--
on this problem, the second part is problematic because "it" MUST refer to the entire noun phrase "10 times as much energy". the problem is that, ten years ago, it wasn't ten times as much energy, so the sentence is literally saying that ten times some quantity is the same quantity. that makes no sense.
2 posts Page 1 of 1