Because the Earth’s crust

[gillian.hu2]

Because the Earth’s crust is more solid there and thus better able to transmit shock waves, an earthquake of a given magnitude typically devastates an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than it does in the West.

(A) of a given magnitude typically devastates an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than it does in the West
(B) of a given magnitude will typically devastate 100 times the area if it occurs in the eastern United States instead of the West
(C) will typically devastate 100 times the area in the eastern United States than one of the comparable magnitude occurring in the West
(D) in the eastern United States will typically devastate an area 100 times greater than will a quake of comparable magnitude occurring in the West
(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

key:D
how to cross out B and C?

[gillian.hu2]

555, why no answer...?

[anoo.anand]

(B) of a given magnitude will typically devastate 100 times the area if it occurs in the eastern United States instead of the West
(C) will typically devastate 100 times the area in the eastern United States than one of the comparable magnitude occurring in the West

B -- is wrong because it has dangling " IT"
C -- is wrong because area is being compared to earth quake ...

[RonPurewal]

the easiest way to eliminate (b) and (c) is idiomatic usage. you should know the correct way to use "10 times", "10 times greater", etc.

(B) of a given magnitude will typically devastate 100 times the area if it occurs in the eastern United States instead of the West

the correct idiom would be "100 times the area that..." or "100 times the area of..."
or, you could change to another correct idiom, such as "100 times as much area... as..."

you definitely can't combine "100 times" with "instead of".

(C) will typically devastate 100 times the area in the eastern United States than one of the comparable magnitude occurring in the West

you can't use "100 times the area" with "than".

if you use "100 times the area", you should use an idiom that's correct with that construction, such as the ones mentioned above.

if you use "than", it MUST go with a comparison word (more, less, greater, bigger, smaller, etc.) there is no such comparison word in (c), so "than" is incorrect.

[RonPurewal]

555, why no answer...?

for future reference -

if you "bump" posts like this, that will actually move them to the END of the line.

we answer posts from oldest to newest. if you "bump" a post, then it becomes the newest post - which means that we'll answer it last.

[kamalsinghy]

Hi Ron,

what's wrong with option A. I mean please elaborate your views comprehensively on option A.

pronoun 'it' can refer back to 'an earthquake of a given magnitude'. Also comparison issue can be resolved by replacing 'it', and the main clause can remain in present tense as well. Since answer given is D, so definitely I am wrong somewhere. I need to have some takeaway from question.

Thanks.

[Ben Ku]

Because the Earth’s crust is more solid there and thus better able to transmit shock waves, an earthquake of a given magnitude typically devastates an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than it does in the West.

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

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.

[tankobe]

the easiest way to eliminate (b) and (c) is idiomatic usage. you should know the correct way to use "10 times", "10 times greater", etc.

(B) of a given magnitude will typically devastate 100 times the area if it occurs in the eastern United States instead of the West

the correct idiom would be "100 times the area that..." or "100 times the area of..."
or, you could change to another correct idiom, such as "100 times as much area... as..."
you definitely can't combine "100 times" with "instead of".

Ron, you said 100 times as much area as.... is right idiom, so more area is also OK.
But in my mind,when we talk about the Noun such as number/area/volume/height/ lenght, we need a adj like great.
the number/area/volume/ height/lenght is greater/great--sounds OK!
the number/area/volume/ height/lenght is more/much--does not sound OK!
i know lots of GMAT questions examining us on this tricky issue;whenever the context is suitable for greater/great, we can not change the words with more/much in advance.

So are you sure we can also use area together with more/much? just need your confirmation.

[RonPurewal]

the easiest way to eliminate (b) and (c) is idiomatic usage. you should know the correct way to use "10 times", "10 times greater", etc.

(B) of a given magnitude will typically devastate 100 times the area if it occurs in the eastern United States instead of the West

the correct idiom would be "100 times the area that..." or "100 times the area of..."
or, you could change to another correct idiom, such as "100 times as much area... as..."
you definitely can't combine "100 times" with "instead of".

Ron, you said 100 times as much area as.... is right idiom, so more area is also OK.
But in my mind,when we talk about the Noun such as number/area/volume/height/ lenght, we need a adj like great.
the number/area/volume/ height/lenght is greater/great--sounds OK!
the number/area/volume/ height/lenght is more/much--does not sound OK!
i know lots of GMAT questions examining us on this tricky issue;whenever the context is suitable for greater/great, we can not change the words with more/much in advance.

So are you sure we can also use area together with more/much? just need your confirmation.

this is an overgeneralization. just because you can say "more X" does NOT mean that you can also say "the X is more" (or vice versa).

for instance, tray A contains more food than tray B is acceptable, but the food on tray A is more than the food on tray B is not acceptable.

unfortunately, then, you have to think of "quantity terms that can come before the noun" and "quantity terms that can come after the noun" as two different categories.

[RonPurewal]

and, yes, you can use "much" with "area".

btw, you can use "more" with both countable and uncountable words.
lake X contains more water than lake Y. (uncountable)
bowl X contains more almonds than bowl Y. (countable)

[purduesr]

Because the Earth’s crust is more solid there and thus better able to transmit shock waves, an earthquake of a given magnitude typically devastates an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than it does in the West.

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

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.

I don't understand your explanation for #2, mainly because if I apply your logic to choice D

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

it doesn't make sense because we don't have anything after "greater" as it does with choice A. For A, I thought comparison was made clear: Quake will devastate 100 times the area in the East than it does in the West. It = Quake while does = devastation. Please help me understand.

[Ben Ku]

I don't understand your explanation for #2, mainly because if I apply your logic to choice D

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

it doesn't make sense because we don't have anything after "greater" as it does with choice A. For A, I thought comparison was made clear: Quake will devastate 100 times the area in the East than it does in the West. It = Quake while does = devastation. Please help me understand.

The structure of choice (D) is different from choice (A).

Answer choice (A) states:
an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than it does in the West

The two things being compared are in italics, and are not structurally comparable. If it may be correct to instead write:

an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than in the West

In answer choice (D), the structure is "X is greater than Y". Let's look at the sentence:
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

Here, we're comparing a "will" clause with another "will" clause.

Hope that makes sense.

[purduesr]

I don't understand your explanation for #2, mainly because if I apply your logic to choice D

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

it doesn't make sense because we don't have anything after "greater" as it does with choice A. For A, I thought comparison was made clear: Quake will devastate 100 times the area in the East than it does in the West. It = Quake while does = devastation. Please help me understand.

The structure of choice (D) is different from choice (A).

Answer choice (A) states:
an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than it does in the West

The two things being compared are in italics, and are not structurally comparable. If it may be correct to instead write:

an area 100 times greater in the eastern United States than in the West

In answer choice (D), the structure is "X is greater than Y". Let's look at the sentence:
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

Here, we're comparing a "will" clause with another "will" clause.

Hope that makes sense.

Thanks Ben. it makes a perfect sense

[tim]

glad to hear Ben was helpful; that's what we're here for. :)

[tapesh]

I am still having problem understanding the tenses used in D :(


What is verb in D in second will clause ?

I Guess " will occurring".

Then how "will occurring" and "will devastate" are parallel ?

and if it is future continuous then shouldn't it be "will be occurring" ?

Thanks,
TapeshK