Hi Ron,

I have a question for you with regards to your explanation for why C is wrong. I picked A because I've seen similar question before... but I never quite get why C's construction is wrong.

Well, two problems with C, one which I actually get, the other, I don't.

1.) "They" stand for the whole package of "soaring television costs" So if let's replace They with the antecedent:

Soaring television costs accounted for more than half of the spending in the presidential election of 1992, a greater proportion than the SOARING TELEVISION COSTS have been in any previous election.

Therefore, it is nonsense... you are comparing Soaring Television Costs to another Soaring Televions Costs when you are really trying to compare cost to cost.

Cool - I got this part. YOu can't cherry-pick your pronouns.

2.) Ellipsis paralleism - This is the part I'm not as clear about. The pronoun problem aside, wouldn't it make sense to say:

Soaring television costs accounted for more than half of the spending in the presidential election of 1992, a greater proportion than they have been (accounting for) in any previous campaign.

Per your original suggestion, why is it that in the parenthesis you need "ACCOUNTING" vs "accounted for"? This makes no sense.

I would've eliminated C (in addition to the pronoun problem before) based on verb tense, not parallelism. It should have been "they had been accounted for" because the more recent television costs in 1992 are in past tense. If I changed the tense to past perfect, would Choice C be correct?

I really want to understand your ellipsis parallelism concept. I see this type of construction all the time when x than y comparison is used... can you perhaps provide a few illustrative, simple examples?

Thank you,

James

Ellipsis paralleism - This is the part I'm not as clear about. The pronoun problem aside, wouldn't it make sense to say:

Soaring television costs accounted for more than half of the spending in the presidential election of 1992, a greater proportion than they have been (accounting for) in any previous campaign.

Per your original suggestion, why is it that in the parenthesis you need "ACCOUNTING" vs "accounted for"? This makes no sense.

The verb ellipsed need not be in precisely the same tense as the verb used earlier in the sentence. We can correctly say "I wanted to see Flashdance but my wife already had (seen Flashdance)."

On the other hand, we have to understand the verb ellipsed to match with any tense markers present, so we cannot understand that sentence to mean "I wanted to see Flashdance but my wife already had (see Flashdance)," or "I wanted to see Flashdance but my wife already had (to see Flashdance)."

so how do you know that "soaring television costs" should be taken as a whole as opposed to just "television costs"? I am confused on that.. thanks!

as long as we know that we are talking about the television costs, it's immaterial whether you include that adjective in your analysis.
i.e., all of the television costs in the problem are “soaring” anyway, so the meaning is invariant regardless of whether you include that adjective.

hi, Ron, why can't 'it' stands for 'proportion' in option A?

sorry, i found the explaination in the 2nd page. please ignore it,thanks.

no problem..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

Hi Ron,
What would it be like if this sentence is written in a completed version but not an ellipisis?

from the above explanations ,I already know that any pronoun (it/they) are wrong to follow"than", and the only way left is to repeat the word ""proportion"?

another quesiton: as seen in another post(employment-costs-rose-2-8-percent-t4455.html)(debarya's post and your reply),

it seems you justifed the saying that "a greater proportion than...." should be followed by the "to do" verb form, I don't quite get it why we need a "do" rather than a "be" here as I think it is "television costs" that "do" but not the "proportion".

"this sentence" = which sentence? (this thread has almost 40 posts, so it's difficult to understand vague references.)

in any case, this is the wrong way to approach sentences like this -- the whole point of omitting repeated words is that sentences without the repeated words are weird and awkward. therefore, you don't want to construct them.

the better way to approach comparisons is simply to eliminate comparisons that are either
1) ambiguous, or
2) demonstrably non-parallel.

every incorrect comparison will satisfy either 1) or 2), and perhaps even both.

sorry what I meant was this SC problem's right version.

well, sometimes I just feel that when I know how the full version of a sentence involving comparison is like, I can easily judge the choices as I know what the ommited part should be, it's also an easy way to explain an SC problem, right?

Hi Ron,
What is the exact ellipsis that you mentioned here in choice (B)?
You mentioned above :

Does this mean choice (B) with ellipsis would read as follows?

"Soaring television costs accounted for X, a greater proportion than (the proportion) in any previous election."

Kindly explain.

-Vaibhav.

Violet, to answer your question, it is certainly not wrong to include the information that otherwise could have been in an ellipsis. There is never anything wrong with spelling everything out clearly and completely. I'm not sure what you are asking about though when you ask if something is an easy way to explain a sentence correction problem..

Vaibhav, I think you have the right idea with the ellipsis..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor

Hi- I belive the 1st part is not answered... Could you please let us know how to identify the whether is it a abstract noun or a concrete noun. from the this link

(the-computer-company-has-announced-that-it-will-purchase-the-t2673.html )

i can see that "a part of a deal that makes" is a concrete noun that modifier $950 million, in this current SC under discussion " a greater proportion " stands for the complete idea of the previous clause - so is there a way to identify which type these nouns belongs to?


For Instance we now know and check for all SC for comma + Ing (below is from Ron's post from some other thread....)

(A)
it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause;

AND

(B)
one of the following is true:
(1) the "ing" action is SIMULTANEOUS with, and SUBORDINATE to, the main action;
- i ran down the sidewalk, flapping my arms wildly
(2) the "ing" action is a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the main action.
- i got a 100 on the most recent exam, bringing my average up to 91

Similarly can we do some check / POE to identify whether these are abstract or concete nouns? Thanks in anticipation.

jp.jprasanna, please try to quote only the relevant part of a post. thanks.



basically, two things:

1/
you should know that these modifiers can modify either (a) the preceding noun or (b) the preceding clause/idea;

2/
you should use common sense, combined with the meaning of the sentence, to see which (if either) of these situations applies.
basically, if either (a) or (b) above works, then the modifier is fine.