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

OA: C

I chose A because:
- I thought 'in no other historical sighting..' // 'in 1910-1911'
- 'as' introduces a clause, therefore needs subject and verb.

also, on a different forum, someone mentioned that 'it did' is implied.
In no other historical sighting did Halley's comet cause such a worldwide sensation as (it did) in its return of 1910-1911

is there a concrete rule as to when ellipsis can be used?

thanks.

nope. that's not logically parallel enough.

when you're talking about an event (historical sighting), that event should be placed in parallel with another event (its return).
it's illogical to place an event in parallel with a year or date.




there's ellipsis. see below.



you can elide the the subject and verb of a clause that's placed in parallel with another if they are an exact match for their counterparts in the other clause.
that's what happens here: the elided words in this case are "halley's comet caused / did cause a worldwide sensation". since they're the same words, you can omit them.

by the way, you are much better off studying tons and tons and tons of examples than studying "rules".

rather than memorizing rules as such, i'd suggest that you google "elliptical construction", come up with a bunch of web pages like this one, and internalize the example sentences again and again and again, until they're second nature to you.

remember, our brains learn by imitation, not by algorithms. you'd be wise to follow suit.

Ron.. I went through the explanation but could not understand ... May I request you to give explanation option-wise. Please...

The issue is the comparison, set up by the word "as."

Note that we begin with a prepositional phrase: "in no other historical sighting." The "as" connects back to that first phrase, so that we compare "in its return" to "in no other historical sighting."

What is the difference between C and E?
Can we discard E because it does not have "in"? In other words, because it is not parallel with "In no other..."?

it's actually ambiguous. the ambiguity is hard to see, especially because this choice comes last (so that the correct meaning has already been hammered into your head by the other answer choices), so i'll use an analogy to explain.

in no other music festival did jimi hendrix cause such a spectacle as woodstock.

this is ambiguous. there are two possible interpretations:
(1) ...as IN woodstock (this is analogous to the intended meaning of the posted problem)
(2) ...as DID woodstock (i.e., you're comparing the spectacle caused by jimi hendrix to the spectacle caused by woodstock itself)

the same two types of interpretations are possible for the posted problem.

--

here's a relevant takeaway:

if you have 2 ANSWER CHOICES THAT DIFFER ONLY IN THE PRESENCE/ABSENCE OF A LITTLE WORD, then CHANCES ARE THAT THE LITTLE WORD IS NECESSARY.
this is a really, really, really strong bias, like over 90% likely. if you see two such choices, then you should REALLY think twice before picking the one without the "little word"
i can't guarantee this 100%, but LOOK FOR AN AMBIGUITY that arises if the little word is omitted.

* if the little word isn't the _sole_ difference between 2 answer choices, then try to concentrate on the other differences between the answer choices first.

for another example of a problem like this, see sentence correction #106 in the purple OG verbal supplement.

I thought such...as were most likely to be used together to make examples:such A as B .B is a specific example of A, so I picked E
but in this case, it seems that "such" and"as" are separately used. AS is used alone to refer back to the first part of the sentence. Is that true?

Hi all ....

I have a query in this question :


The correct option C says : in its return OF 1910-1911.

Now isnt this wrong coz it gives a very confusing meaning that the comet (somehow) returned the year 1910-11 !!?!?

So IMO , the correct ans actually should be: in its return IN 1910-1911
Could this be a typo in OG ?!?!

Why i say this, is because, if one looks in the answer's explanation in OG:


It means that they actually wanted to say that the best option is IN and not OF 1910-11.

Any thoughts anyone !?!!!?

Threads on OG questions are closed. This forum is for questions from the GMAT Prep materials.

Does this question also occur in those materials? If not, we'll need to delete your post and close the thread.

Jonathan or Ron,
I now understand it a little bit better that "as" seems a marker here to indicate the 2nd item in the comparison. Would you please explain further along this line of "as"? How did you decide that the other item in the comparison is the beginning part "in no other historical sighting", why not the "in no other historical sighting did", or even longer part than that?

Second, would you please fill in the words that omitted? along this line, when we need the two items compared STRUCTURELY paralleled, do we require the two parts in the same order of expression?

Third, would you please help to write out this sentence in the normal order????

Finally, does "such ... as" here mean "a worldwide sensation SUCH AS (C)--in its return of 1910-1911"? How can a prep phrase represent an example of "a worldwide sensation"?

Anyway, I can only eliminate (B) and thought every other AC is OK.

Thanks!

hi -- is this question in the gmat prep software?
if so, then, before any further discussion, would you mind attaching a screenshot as proof? as michael stated above, this has been identified as an OG question, and ever since december 2007 we haven't been allowed to discuss those on the forum.
however, if the question is also in the gmat prep software, then we can discuss it.

thanks

-- ron

Ron,

This is from my test 1 in GMATPrep, but I don't have screeenshot anymore. Please wait for some days, cause I plan to redo test1 tomorrow, maybe this one will show up again. Thank you!

ok i'll answer this one, since you're a trusted poster (i.e., you're actually a known client).



"in no other historical sighting did" is a nonsense construction -- you can't break grammatical units up like that.
in particular, in no other historical sighting is a prepositional phrase, which can be considered a "unit". did Halley's comet cause ... is a subject and verb, so that's a separate "unit".
i.e., the verb here is "did cause"; you can't break that up.
here's a simpler example:
James can run to the store.
i think you'll agree with the following:
* analyzing james can run and to the store as separate "units" is logical.
* analyzing james can run to, or james can run to the, as individual "units" would be illogical.

--


there aren't really omitted words here; the parallel constructions are
in its return of 1910-1911
and
in no other historical sighting.

this is sort of like saying i was heavier at age 14 than at age 18 -- there aren't really "omissions" here.

remember that you're going to have to use MEANING to figure out what should be compared.
in this sentence, the non-underlined part contains the following elements:
* the comet DID cause a sensation
* IN no other sighting
so ... if you had "[some other sighting] DID", or "IN [something else that caused a sensation]", then that would be an error -- not necessarily a grammar error, but a meaning error because it'd be nonsense.
on the other hand, if you saw "IN [some other sighting]", or [something else that caused a sensation] DID", then that would create a valid comparison.
this, by the way, is the reason why choices (a) and (d) are wrong. they aren't grammatical errors; they just set the wrong things up to be compared.



eeeeeehhhhh i'm reluctant, because an irrelevant skill set is involved -- i.e., you don't "rewrite sentences in normal order" on the actual test, so it's a waste of time to do so in practice.

nevertheless, if you absolutely insist on switching these words around, you can approximate the sentence by
Halley's comet did not cause as much of a sensation in any other sighting as in its return of 1910-11.



good question -- actually, no.
"such an X as Y" is, in terms of meaning, roughly the same as "an X similar to Y" or "an X similar to the X that occurred in situation Y".
you can tell that this is not the more common usage of "such as", because this sentence is definitely not listing examples of any more general category.

Ron,

Now I finally understand this SC. Thank you very much for your effort to answer all of my questions! Earlier I didn't know where I got caught up.

This SC was hard for me because it has so many things going on together: omission, reversed order and comparison, and all of these happened in the underlined part which means uncertainty. So how can I detect what the aurhor intended to say with all of these uncertainties and potential various possibilites? Is there some thinking process you would recommend?



Thank you!