While the other more important issues have been addressed, Mr. Ranjit's question above still remains unanswered. I have the same question as well. Ron, can you help me with this?

IMO, that should be ok cuz that is understood as Ellipses.

Yeah, the "do" is understood. Furthermore - don't worry yourself trying to fix things that are not underline! : )

So, going back to Raj's question, should we just replace as well as with while?

Diesel engines burn as much as 30% less fuel, "while" emitting far less carbon...

is that appropriate usage? Thanks

you don't need the "do" because the comparison is not AMBIGUOUS in the first place.

go read this post, in which i give examples of both (a) a comparison requiring such a helping verb and (b) a comparison that doesn't require one:
post29754.html#p29754

that should take care of this issue. if it doesn't, post back.

Hi, ron or stracey!

what's the different between fewer of and fewer?
i think emitting far fewer the other gasses will sound more logical for the parallel to emitting far less (no of ) carbon dioxide gas .

stephen

Hi Ron, this GMATPrep problem uses the construction as well as in the correct answer choice in a different way


The ecosystems of barrier islands are extremely vulnerable--whether from natural processes like shoreline recession, rising sea levels, and destructive hurricanes, or the ever-increasing pressures of development.

(A) whether from natural processes like shoreline recession, rising sea levels, and destructive hurricanes, or
(B) whether from natural processes such as shoreline recession, rising sea levels, and destructive hurricanes, or also
(C) to processes that are natural like shoreline recession, rising sea levels, and destructive hurricanes, and also
(D) to processes that are natural ones like shoreline recession, rising sea levels, and destructive hurricanes, as well as to
(E) to natural processes such as shoreline recession, rising sea levels, and destructive hurricanes, as well as to

Here's another one.

Gasoline marketing is undergoing major changes as stations often not only add convenience stores but also combine with major fast-food chains to build complexes where customers can shop and eat as well as buy gasoline.



So I believe GMAT accepts the use of "as well as" as a quasi-coordinator as other sources do. For instance
http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP ... q=&f=false

look for as well as. I have another sources with examples of as well as coordinating two verbs in present simple.


Perhaps in option A as well as is playing the role of an adverbial modifier, since is preceded by a comma, modifying the previous clause. Another problem in B might the use of having that seems a little awkward at least to me.

What do you think?

mikrodj -

in the problem you've cited, "as well as" is followed by an infinitive, complete with "to". therefore, that's a completely different construction than what is being discussed here.

--

as far as looking at non-underlined parts of problems, that's a risky game to play. the gmat is sometimes much less careful with those parts.
sometimes, the gmat's writing of the non-underlined parts actually contradicts its own rules. for instance, see this problem:
sc-with-surface-temperatures-estimated-at-minus-230-degrees-t7887.html

in that problem, the non-underlined part contains "estimated at". this is disturbing, since the gmat indicates elsewhere that "estimated at" is unidiomatic. (in fact, choice (a) of OG12 #27 / OG11 #21 is wrong ONLY because of this idiom.)
that's a direct contradiction.
so it's not 100% a good idea to generalize from non-underlined parts.

[ron:
i retract this advice; the non-underlined parts should generally be reliable. see my post below.]

Thanks for the gr8 explanation Ron.

I am quite confused whether to learn from non-underlined parts or not.As you said above it would be risky whereas here you suggest that we should :http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/strawberries-unlike-picking-bananas-that-are-green-and-can-t6061.html

Please help...As I follow your explanations(as that's better) more than OG explanations ... :)

Thanks in advance :)

i retract my advice above about non-underlined parts -- they should in general be reliable.

re: the problem i cited in that post, there is actually no contradiction; this is just a simple matter of grammar -- namely, prepositions need to be followed by NOUNS.
so, in the OG problems cited above, "estimated at 40 to 44 million years old" is incorrect not because of idiomatic rules, but, rather, simply because “40 to 44 million years old” is not a NOUN.

by contrast, "minus 230 degrees Farenheit" is a NOUN, so that construction is acceptable.

in general, you should be able to trust what is in the non-underlined parts.

if there is a contrast between one of the non-underlined parts and one of the OG answer explanations, you should DEFINITELY trust the non-underlined part.
many of the answer explanations in the OG are completely worthless; a few are even outright incorrect.

what's wrong with C?
thanks.

the most salient problem with (c) is its use of "fewer" to describe carbon dioxide. since carbon dioxide is not countable -- it's like water or air -- you have to say less carbon dioxide, not "fewer carbon dioxide".
if this is not clear, consider "fewer air" or "fewer water", both of which are very clearly incorrect (vis-à-vis the correct versions, less air and less water).