There is a widespread belief in the US and Western

[Anon]

There is a widespread belief in the US and Western Europe that young people have a smaller commitment to work and a career than their parents and grandparents and that the source of the change lies in the collapse of the 'work ethic'.

A. a smaller commitment to work and a career than their parents and grandparents

B. less of a commitment to work and a career than their parents and grandparents

C. a smaller commitment to work and a career than their parents and grandparents

D. less of a commitment to work and a career than their parents and grandparents had

E. a lessening of the commitment to work and a career than their parents and grandparents had


In D - the shouldn't the verb be DID ??

Also ... can we omit the second verb here... as there is NO ambiguity. like in choice B ??


E.g SC 75 OG 11 - yellow book

Please clarify...Thanks

[RonPurewal]

There is a widespread belief in the US and Western Europe that young people have a smaller commitment to work and a career than their parents and grandparents and that the source of the change lies in the collapse of the 'work ethic'.

A. a smaller commitment to work and a career than their parents and grandparents

B. less of a commitment to work and a career than their parents and grandparents

C. a smaller commitment to work and a career than their parents and grandparents

D. less of a commitment to work and a career than their parents and grandparents had

E. a lessening of the commitment to work and a career than their parents and grandparents had


In D - the shouldn't the verb be DID ??

'had' actually creates better parallelism, as it's parallel to 'have' in the first part.

Also ... can we omit the second verb here... as there is NO ambiguity. like in choice B ??

no.
there is ambiguity if you eliminate the helping verb.
without the helping verb, there are two interpretations:
1: young people are less committed to work/career than WERE their parents/grandparents (the intended meaning)
2: young people are less committed to work/career than TO their parents/grandparents
you can't tell which of these is the correct meaning without the helping verb; therefore, the helping verb is necessary.

[josh_nsit]

In D - the shouldn't the verb be DID ??

'had' actually creates better parallelism, as it's parallel to 'have' in the first part.

Also ... can we omit the second verb here... as there is NO ambiguity. like in choice B ??

no.
there is ambiguity if you eliminate the helping verb.
without the helping verb, there are two interpretations:
1: young people are less committed to work/career than WERE their parents/grandparents (the intended meaning)
2: young people are less committed to work/career than TO their parents/grandparents
you can't tell which of these is the correct meaning without the helping verb; therefore, the helping verb is necessary.

Please consider these sentences:
Sentence 1: I have more toys than you [do]. -- do is avoidable here.
Sentence 2: I have seen more toys than you have.

Something similar holds true for sentences in past. I feel above sentences as example are correct semantically. Please correct me if any of them is wrong.

I follow the rule : Has/Have used in sense of possessive references as in 1st sentence calls for a parallel verb form of 'do'. whereas any supporting verb/perfect conjugate calls for repetition of support verb form as in sentence 2.

The posted sentence in the question here can be fit into the sentence 1 if one replaces 'I' with 'young people' and toys with 'commitment of work'.
From the specific behavior of above grammar rules, I reached the inference that in absence of supporting verb in first part, there should be no supporting verb in 2nd phrase comparison as it is there in choice D. Also, b seemed correct as usage of verb form of do/did can be obviated.

It will great if you can shed some light on, where I am going wrong. I dont think have as such used in D is a case of a supporting verb at all.

[grammarguru]

josh - you have a innovative point. You have raised a very valid line of thought - I hope your question is answered in this forum.

[Prasun84]

Valid point josh.
Plus how do u choose between "less of a commitment" and "smaller commitment" although "a lesser commitmrnt" sounds ideal here...

[RonPurewal]

Something similar holds true for sentences in past. I feel above sentences as example are correct semantically. Please correct me if any of them is wrong.

no, those sentences look fine.
i'm pretty sure you could also excise "have" from the second sentence, as there would still be no ambiguity.

I follow the rule : Has/Have used in sense of possessive references as in 1st sentence calls for a parallel verb form of 'do'. whereas any supporting verb/perfect conjugate calls for repetition of support verb form as in sentence 2.

it appears that you're implicitly following a rule that says something like "if a sentence looks like X and is grammatically correct, then ALL other grammatically correct sentences of that type must perforce also look like X".
equivalently, you seem to believe that if there exists a correct sentence with structure X, then ALL structures other than X are wrong.
with certain very mechanical notions, such as s-v agreement, this principle largely works, although it's still questionable even then.
however, trying to apply it to matters such as diction, usage, and word choice - as you're doing here - will be ruinous.

The posted sentence in the question here can be fit into the sentence 1 if one replaces 'I' with 'young people' and toys with 'commitment of work'.
From the specific behavior of above grammar rules, I reached the inference that in absence of supporting verb in first part, there should be no supporting verb in 2nd phrase comparison as it is there in choice D. Also, b seemed correct as usage of verb form of do/did can be obviated.

It will great if you can shed some light on, where I am going wrong. I dont think have as such used in D is a case of a supporting verb at all.

* one:
the "rule" you're trying to use is fundamentally flawed. you're trying to distill word choice / usage down to a formula; you simply will not be able to do that.
as stated above, formulaic "rules" work well for mechanical grammar concepts, but word choice / usage is not such a concept.

* two:
the inclusion or exclusion of the helping verbs here is driven by ambiguity.
in general, the rule is to exclude unnecessary helping verbs, unless the sentence is ambiguous without them.

it has already been established in this thread (go back to the post marked 9 jul 2008 5:44am) that, in this problem, the structures without "had" are AMBIGUOUS, and therefore wrong.
period.
full stop.
end of story.
your analogue is not ambiguous, and is therefore a poor analogue: you can get away with removing its helping verb (because there's still no ambiguity), but you can't do the same for the sentence in the problem.

* three:
seriously.
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO FIND "ERRORS" IN CORRECT ANSWER CHOICES FROM OFFICIAL PROBLEMS.
don't.
they are officially correct answers. questioning their correctness is about as effective as having a fistfight with a brick wall.
it's their playground. they make the rules; you don't. play by their rules.

there are certainly official problems whose solutions i don't much like, either. but, even though i'm really good at this stuff, that doesn't make those choices any less correct in the gmat universe.

i gave a lecture of sorts on this topic here.

[eee]

Valid point josh.
Plus how do u choose between "less of a commitment" and "smaller commitment" although "a lesser commitmrnt" sounds ideal here...

and about the "less of a commitment" and "smaller commitment" ??

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

Valid point josh.
Plus how do u choose between "less of a commitment" and "smaller commitment" although "a lesser commitmrnt" sounds ideal here...

and about the "less of a commitment" and "smaller commitment" ??

Thank you.

this distinction isn't necessary to decide the problem, so i'd refrain from making any sort of hypothesis about it.
i'd reflexively choose "less of a commitment" based on my own extensive experience with formal writing, but the gmat occasionally follows surprising conventions.

[tankobe]

hi ron! two questions:

1) dose less of (or more of) function as adv or adj?
i guess it was used as adv to modify have because just less will be better than less of if a term was used as adj to modify commitment and career.

2)there are three types of sentences for comparison ,i wonder if they are all ok in gramma.
#1 young people have less career than their parents did.
#2 young people have career less than that of their parents.
#3 young people have less career than that of their parents.

thank you!!

[RonPurewal]

1) dose less of (or more of) function as adv or adj?
i guess it was used as adv to modify have because just less will be better than less of if a term was used as adj to modify commitment and career.

in this problem it's wrong, so i'm not sure it's wise to analyze at all.

the only acceptable version of "less of" that i've seen appears in sentences dealing with literal fractions of something:
james ate less of the roast than did each of his brothers.

even in this case, it's probably better to say "a smaller portion of...", or something else along those lines.

in this construction, "less" would count as either a noun or a pronoun (i'm not sure which - the distinction isn't terribly important unless you're talking about relative pronouns)

--

2)there are three types of sentences for comparison ,i wonder if they are all ok in gramma.
#1 young people have less career than their parents did.
#2 young people have career less than that of their parents.
#3 young people have less career than that of their parents.

these would all be incorrect. there are several problems.

first, "career" is not a quantitative concept, so it makes no sense to modify "career" with "less".
you would want to express this notion using a word that can be quantified:
young people have [i]less demanding careers than their parents had.
etc.

second, you can't say that "young people" (plural) have "a career" (singular). it has to be "careers".

[incorrect statements removed]

[tankobe]

1) dose less of (or more of) function as adv or adj?
i guess it was used as adv to modify have because just less will be better than less of if a term was used as adj to modify commitment and career.

in this problem it's wrong, so i'm not sure it's wise to analyze at all.

the only acceptable version of "less of" that i've seen appears in sentences dealing with literal fractions of something:
james ate less of the roast than did each of his brothers.

even in this case, it's probably better to say "a smaller portion of...", or something else along those lines.

in this construction, "less" would count as either a noun or a pronoun (i'm not sure which - the distinction isn't terribly important unless you're talking about relative pronouns)

--

2)there are three types of sentences for comparison ,i wonder if they are all ok in gramma.
#1 young people have less career than their parents did.
#2 young people have career less than that of their parents.
#3 young people have less career than that of their parents.

hmmm! it is a exciting things to read your reply.
(1)Ron, you said poseessive, but i have seen a similar example in OG:
In addition to having more protein than wheat does, rice has protein of higher quality than that in wheat, with more of the amino acids essential to the human diet.
So,beyond the poseessive, can the similar construct be acceptable?

(2)for original 3#sentence, i am sorry for not expressing my insight correctly.
1# Substances present as little risk as one in a million chances to cause cancer. (from Prep)
2# The singer has released as small a collection as one pirated album.(form Ron's example sentence)
This two sentence are magic:if the case is in other contexts,which are very very common in GMAT(for example, i drive a faster car than you)--we can attack the validity of sentence by saying that it can means :i drive a faster car than i drive you. So GMAT force us to add the help word do behind you to eliminate ambiguity.
However, in the two sentence above, we can not attack the two sentence by saying saying (for 2#) the comparision is between singer and album--The singer has released as small a NOUN as one pirated album has. Acctually, the whole phrase--as small a collection as one pirated album--function as object and is free of ambiguity.

Why？How can they do it?
in additon, i have never seen a "more NOUN than NOUN" phrase function as a object without ambiguity. does it possible?

[RonPurewal]

hmmm! it is a exciting things to read your reply.
(1)Ron, you said poseessive, but i have seen a similar example in OG:
In addition to having more protein than wheat does, rice has protein of higher quality than that in wheat, with more of the amino acids essential to the human diet.
So,beyond the poseessive, can the similar construct be acceptable?

it appears that you've provided an example proving that the answer is "no" ... so i guess the answer is "no".

This two sentence are magic:if the case is in other contexts,which are very very common in GMAT(for example, i drive a faster car than you)--we can attack the validity of sentence by saying that it can means :i drive a faster car than i drive you.

nah, "james drives a faster car than louis" would not be considered ambiguous, since you can't "drive" a person. (let's stick with the third person, since all gmat sentences are in the third person.)
i.e., "i drive a faster car than i drive you" is nonsense, so, "i drive a faster car than you" is actually just fine. it's not ambiguous.

on the other hand, "james has known stephanie longer than louis" is definitely ambiguous: it could mean "james has known stephanie longer than james has known louis", or it could mean "james has known stephanie longer than louis has known stephanie".

if the gmat is going to present you with ambiguity, it will be like this latter example: CLEAR ambiguity, between two meanings that are both REASONABLE.

However, in the two sentence above, we can not attack the two sentence by saying saying (for 2#) the comparision is between singer and album--The singer has released as small a NOUN as one pirated album has. Acctually, the whole phrase--as small a collection as one pirated album--function as object and is free of ambiguity.

this is not ambiguous, because "...as one pirated album has" is nonsense. an album can't release music; only a person can do that.

from these posts it appears that you're trying to reduce everything to mechanics, all the time, without thinking about what the words mean. unfortunately, that's not a viable strategy; many errors (including almost ALL errors with modifiers) depend heavily on your recognition of what the sentence is or isn't supposed to mean, and on which meanings make sense and which don't.

[tankobe]

hmmm! it is a exciting things to read your reply.
(1)Ron, you said poseessive, but i have seen a similar example in OG:
In addition to having more protein than wheat does, rice has protein of higher quality than that in wheat, with more of the amino acids essential to the human diet.
So,beyond the poseessive, can the similar construct be acceptable?

it appears that you've provided an example proving that the answer is "no" ... so i guess the answer is "no".

This two sentence are magic:if the case is in other contexts,which are very very common in GMAT(for example, i drive a faster car than you)--we can attack the validity of sentence by saying that it can means :i drive a faster car than i drive you.

nah, "james drives a faster car than louis" would not be considered ambiguous, since you can't "drive" a person. (let's stick with the third person, since all gmat sentences are in the third person.)
i.e., "i drive a faster car than i drive you" is nonsense, so, "i drive a faster car than you" is actually just fine. it's not ambiguous.

on the other hand, "james has known stephanie longer than louis" is definitely ambiguous: it could mean "james has known stephanie longer than james has known louis", or it could mean "james has known stephanie longer than louis has known stephanie".

if the gmat is going to present you with ambiguity, it will be like this latter example: CLEAR ambiguity, between two meanings that are both REASONABLE.

However, in the two sentence above, we can not attack the two sentence by saying saying (for 2#) the comparision is between singer and album--The singer has released as small a NOUN as one pirated album has. Acctually, the whole phrase--as small a collection as one pirated album--function as object and is free of ambiguity.

this is not ambiguous, because "...as one pirated album has" is nonsense. an album can't release music; only a person can do that.

from these posts it appears that you're trying to reduce everything to mechanics, all the time, without thinking about what the words mean. unfortunately, that's not a viable strategy; many errors (including almost ALL errors with modifiers) depend heavily on your recognition of what the sentence is or isn't supposed to mean, and on which meanings make sense and which don't.

Ron, with you help, i have really learned a great lesson again.
Actually, whenever i am confused by a qestion, the first thing occurs in my mind is to go to MGAMT and search, just to find what Ron had said or posted about the question.

[yingxue.yang]

how about C

[RonPurewal]

how about C

what question are you asking here? please ask your question explicitly; thank you.