- UID
- 17825
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2003-11-16
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
zxppx 发表于 2013-6-5 10:40 ![]()
http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/according-to-recent-studies-comparing-the-nutritional-value-t7 ...
Pathik wrote:B. wild animals have less total fat than livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of
fat thought to be
Isn't B incorretly saying
wild animals have less fat than wild animals have livestock
I thought for proper comaprision we need verb in the second part of comparision something like - wild animals have less total fat than do livestock.
------------------------------------------
you've learned a lesson here: the gmat's preference for that 'do' is not absolute.
from a 100% strict semantic viewpoint, i agree with you here: there's technically an ambiguity. however, we now have evidence, in the form of this problem, that the gmat doesn't consider ALL of these 'ambiguities' as truly ambiguous. rather, provided that the 'second meaning' is sufficiently absurd AND nonparallel (note the obvious logical nonparallelism of compairing total fat to livestock), it's ok to eliminate the 'do'.
sigh.
remember, we don't make the rules; they do. but with each problem like this one that you study, you'll have a better idea of exactly what their rules are.
----------------------------------
Then I am fine, thanks for sharing this important sematic point.
Let's end this thread, though a good one. |
|