Because the Earth’s crust

[mschwrtz]

The entire verb phrase "will devastate" or "will typically devastate" is implicit in the second occurrence of "will." You can write, "Brazil will last longer in the World Cup than Germany will." You wouldn't write or say "Brazil will last longer in the World Cup than Germany will last in the world cup."

"Occurring" is not a verb here, but a modifier. "Occurring in the West" modifies "a quake of comparable magnitude," which noun phrase immediately precedes it.

[himanshu.shekhar]

Isn't it not suggested in MGMAT SC guide to not use greater than in a sentence which uses times as a comparison. Chapter 13, page 256.

[jnelson0612]

Isn't it not suggested in MGMAT SC guide to not use greater than in a sentence which uses times as a comparison. Chapter 13, page 256.

Note what the strategy guide actually says: "In one GMAT problem (#72 in the Verbal Supplement), the correct answer says that certain numbers are "5 times greater than . . ." other numbers. In general, however, this usage should be avoided."

This is an example of a guideline rather than a rule.

[rikky.bora]

Hi,

Can't we split A from the rest of the options because it gives a different "sense" to the whole meaning.

of a given magnitude typically devastates an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than it does in the West

This statement gives the feeling that earthquakes hitting eastern and western U.S. is a recurring affair and that the idea stated is a fact - a result of a study.

Whereas, the "will" - future tense used in the rest of the options, gives more of an uncertain idea - a feeling of assumption.

Are my ears picking up the nuances correctly?

IMHO, they should do away with the "X times greater than " idiom, it sounds so wrong. Logically, it doesn't convey anything clearly.

[jnelson0612]

Hi,

Can't we split A from the rest of the options because it gives a different "sense" to the whole meaning.

of a given magnitude typically devastates an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than it does in the West

This statement gives the feeling that earthquakes hitting eastern and western U.S. is a recurring affair and that the idea stated is a fact - a result of a study.

Whereas, the "will" - future tense used in the rest of the options, gives more of an uncertain idea - a feeling of assumption.

Are my ears picking up the nuances correctly?

IMHO, they should do away with the "X times greater than " idiom, it sounds so wrong. Logically, it doesn't convey anything clearly.

I see where you are coming from rikky; however, I think the word "typically" in A creates the understanding that this situation is common but will not happen every time. However, I like how closely you are studying the answer choices.

For example:
My cat typically meows more at my house than he does at my parents' house.

We know that the usual behavior of my cat is to meow more at my house, but that does not rule out the possibility that he will meow more at my parents' house on other occasions.

Hope this helps!

[rikky.bora]

Thanks Jamie :)

[jnelson0612]

My pleasure rikky! :-)

[maizeyang]

Hi instructor,

I feel it is strange that the second clause in D begins w/ "will". Why not begins w/ "a quake"? Like this: an earthquake in the eastern United States will typically devastate an area 100 times greater than a quake of comparable magnitude occurring in the West will.

Thanks.

[jnelson0612]

Hi instructor,

I feel it is strange that the second clause in D begins w/ "will". Why not begins w/ "a quake"? Like this: an earthquake in the eastern United States will typically devastate an area 100 times greater than a quake of comparable magnitude occurring in the West will.

Thanks.

In this case, you are using the comparison words "greater than" but without the second "will" you are saying that the a quake will devastate an AREA 100 times greater than a QUAKE. Here you are comparing an area and a quake.

[HSI5858]

instructors, can you please confirm if I eliminate option E for the correction reasons?

(E) that occurs in the eastern United States will typically devastate 100 times more area than if it occurred with comparable magnitude in the West

an earthquake that occurs in the eastern United States will typically devastate
is not parallel to
if it occurred with comparable magnitude in the West

[tim]

bingo

[hbyameking]

Hi MGMAT instructors,

After reading the above replies, I still couldn't find a good reason to rule choice(A) out.

(A) of a given magnitude typically devastates an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than it
does in the West

My understanding was,

1. there is a scientific finding about the earth quake.
2. a typical earth quake leaves such impacts depending on its location.

According to OG 10th explanation, (A) sounds like the same earth quake leaves two impacts in west and east, making no sense.

Is there anything wrong on (A) besides the meaning?
Or, should I verify the scientific finding whether it makes sense in the real world?

Please Help~

[jnelson0612]

Hi MGMAT instructors,

After reading the above replies, I still couldn't find a good reason to rule choice(A) out.

(A) of a given magnitude typically devastates an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than it
does in the West

My understanding was,

1. there is a scientific finding about the earth quake.
2. a typical earth quake leaves such impacts depending on its location.

According to OG 10th explanation, (A) sounds like the same earth quake leaves two impacts in west and east, making no sense.

Is there anything wrong on (A) besides the meaning?
Or, should I verify the scientific finding whether it makes sense in the real world?

Please Help~

Please see our instructor Ben Ku's comments on page 1:

"There are several issues with the original sentence.
(1) "it" can refer to several different singular nouns: crust, earthquake, or area. Make sure the pronouns refer clearly to the correct noun.
(2) the comparison construction is "greater X than Y." Here X = "in the eastern US" and Y = "it does in the West." One is a prepositional phrase, and the other is a clause; they are not parallel.

Hope that helps."

[vikram4689]

Hi instructor,

I feel it is strange that the second clause in D begins w/ "will". Why not begins w/ "a quake"? Like this: an earthquake in the eastern United States will typically devastate an area 100 times greater than a quake of comparable magnitude occurring in the West will.

Thanks.

In this case, you are using the comparison words "greater than" but without the second "will" you are saying that the a quake will devastate an AREA 100 times greater than a QUAKE. Here you are comparing an area and a quake.

My query is regarding Jamie's comment above.

I don't think that if we remove 2nd "will", we compare "an area" with "a quake". As Ron states,in many of his posts, we need verb in 2nd clause to remove ambiguity in comparison. Ambiguity exists in sentences in which all the 3 terms are structurally and logically parallel, rendering impossible to identify the 2 intended parallel elements.

Ron's famous example:
I know Shakespear more than my brother.
Above sentence is an ambiguous sentences because following connotations are possible. Note that all 3 elements I,Shakespear & my brother are parallel.
I know Shakespear more than i know my brother
I know Shakespear more than my brother knows Shakespear

In our sentence below, 2 elements that are parallel are italicized. 3rd element is in bold and is not parallel to other 2 elements. Therefore we can remove the verb in 2nd element to create the sentence (in blue)
an earthquake in the eastern United States will typically devastate an area 100 times greater than will a quake of comparable magnitude occurring in the West

an earthquake in the eastern United States will typically devastate an area 100 times greater than a quake of comparable magnitude occurring in the West

Though addition of "will" or "will devastate" in to 2nd element will convey the intention more readily but i don't think removing it will render it "incorrect" on GMAT.

Please comment on above theory.

[tim]

"an area 100 times greater than a quake". it's pretty obvious that we're comparing an area to a quake, and that of course is not valid. what seems to be the problem?