Dietrich's pants

[tushaw]

On any city street in today's world one will encounter more women who wear pants than skirts, yet, just two or three generations ago, when police forced actress Marlene Dietrich to leave Paris in 1945, for she had dared to wear pants on the street.

a) one will encounter more women who wear pants than skirts, yet, just two or three generations ago, when police forced actress Marlene Dietrich to leave Paris in 1945, for she had dared to wear

b) more women have been encountered wearing pants than skirts, yet it was only in 1945, just two or three generations ago, when police forced actress Marlene Dietrich to leave Paris to dare wearing

c)one has encountered more women wearing pants than skirts, yet, only two or three generations ago, it was in 1945 that Marlene Dietrich, the actress, was forced to leave Paris by police because she dared to wear

d) more women who wear pants than women who wear skirts will be encountered, yet in 1945, just two or three generations ago, when actress Marlene Dietrich was forced by police to leave Paris to dare wearing

e) one will encounter more women wearing pants than wearing skirts, yet it was only two or three generations ago, in 1945, that actress Marlene Dietrich was forced by police to leave Paris for daring to wear

---------------------xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-----------------------------------

Apart from the explanation given, can we also eliminate a,b, and c based on ambiguous comparison in the first part of the sentence?
one will encounter more women who wear pants than skirts


The above sentence does not clearly indicate that 'one will encounter more women who wear pants than women who wear skirts'.

[RonPurewal]

Unless the comparison is actually ambiguous -- i.e., the two possible meanings are both ACTUALLY REASONABLE -- then, no, there's no ambiguity.

For instance, here's a comparison that is genuinely ambiguous:
I have known Sarah for longer than Tom.
This could mean ...
1/ Tom and I both know Sarah, but I met her first.
2/ I know both Tom and Sarah, but I met Sarah first.
There's nothing unreasonable, or in violation of common sense, about either of these, so this is a genuinely ambiguous statement.

--

On the other hand, the comparison in this sentence has one clear, common-sense interpretation. You don't randomly meet skirts walking down the street, so, no, there's no "ambiguity".

Just ask yourself the following question: Would random people be genuinely confused about the meaning of the comparison? If the answer is "no" -- as is clearly the case here -- then the comparison is fine.

[tushaw]

makes sense. looks like i was not thinking logically before comparing the two things. Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

makes sense. looks like i was not thinking logically before comparing the two things. Thanks.

Yep.

Remember -- when you read the original sentence, think ONLY about what it means.
Understand exactly what the sentence means. Determine what everything in the sentence is trying to do.

Don't think about errors yet; leave that to the answer choices (where you can actually see the decision points!).