To meet the rising marketing demand for fish

[maren.j13]

Also am I correct in assuming that choice "A" is wrong because we are comparing "growing fish" with their "natural growth rate.".?

"...suppliers are growing fish twice as fast as their natural growth rate.."

you are correct, if what you meant was that a faulty comparison (BAD PARALLELISM again) is being made.

because 'are growing fish' is a verb construction, it needs to be placed in parallel with another verb construction. choices a and b don't do that (there's no verb in 'their natural growth rate').

Although I understand that one good reason to eliminate A is that "a rate cannot be fast". I did not really understand the point here. Need to understand the parallelism concept here.

Do you mean to say the better one (at least grammatically) would be
"suppliers are growing fish twice as fast as are their natural growth rate"

Suppose we say
Ram is growing the crop as fast as 2kg per day.
This looks fine to me. We wont be saying
Ram is growing the crop as fast as is 2kg per day.

How the comparison should be done here ?
"suppliers are (growing fish twice) as fast as (their natural growth rate)"
OR
"suppliers (are growing fish twice) as fast as (their natural growth rate)"
OR
"suppliers (are growing fish) twice as fast as (their natural growth rate)"

And in the same way how is D maintaining the parallelism ?

[RonPurewal]

How the comparison should be done here ?
"suppliers are (growing fish twice) as fast as (their natural growth rate)"
OR
"suppliers (are growing fish twice) as fast as (their natural growth rate)"
OR
"suppliers (are growing fish) twice as fast as (their natural growth rate)"

Maren, all of those are wrong. in fact, all of them are wrong for precisely the reason you cited at the top of your post -- all of them are saying "faster than a rate".
a rate can't be fast (just as a height can't be tall, and a price can't be expensive); therefore, ANY comparison that ends with "N times as fast as ... RATE x" is illogical.

Note the CORRECT comparisons:
One person is taller than another.
One person's height is greater than another's.

One item is more expensive than another.
One item's price is greater than another's.

One car is faster than another.
One car's speed is greater than another's.
Etc.

––

since all three of the comparisons here are thus incorrect, it doesn't make sense to try to distinguish between them.

[Mymisc]

you have a point with the pronoun reference: technically, it's ambiguous (although the intended meaning is pretty clear). however, since the same 'problem' is present in all five of the answer choices, i guess we shouldn't consider it a problem.

in answer choice c, 'growing them naturally' appears to be parallel to 'growing fish twice as fast...' therefore, the default interpretation of this sentence is that the suppliers are growing the fish (at 2x the normal rate), yet somehow also growing the fish naturally (at the normal rate). not only is this nonsensical, but it alters the meaning of the original sentence.

i agree with you that 'they' is a problem.

Ron,

Is 'they' in (D) just ambiguous or, would 'they' refer to 'suppliers' from grammar aspect, since 'they' occurs in the subject position as in suppliers are growing fish twice as fast as they grow...? And GMAT just accepts this kind of usage?

For (C), I kind of understand what you meant, but I interpret growing them naturally this way: there is a conventional way that suppliers to grow fish, and now suppliers grow fish twice as fast as (they grow fish in that ) conventional way. Can't the word "naturally" have such meaning?

Then I think (C) is eliminated because 'growing' from (C) would introduce a wrong parallelism on suppliers are growing fish as fast as growing them natually, (as fast as) cutting their food ... and (as fast as) raising them ....?

Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

you have a point with the pronoun reference: technically, it's ambiguous (although the intended meaning is pretty clear). however, since the same 'problem' is present in all five of the answer choices, i guess we shouldn't consider it a problem.

in answer choice c, 'growing them naturally' appears to be parallel to 'growing fish twice as fast...' therefore, the default interpretation of this sentence is that the suppliers are growing the fish (at 2x the normal rate), yet somehow also growing the fish naturally (at the normal rate). not only is this nonsensical, but it alters the meaning of the original sentence.

i agree with you that 'they' is a problem.

Ron,

Is 'they' in (D) just ambiguous or, would 'they' refer to 'suppliers' from grammar aspect, since 'they' occurs in the subject position as in suppliers are growing fish twice as fast as they grow...? And GMAT just accepts this kind of usage?

i wrote that post about three years ago -- since then i've accumulated a lot more official evidence on pronoun ambiguity, and have condensed the treatment of pronoun ambiguity into the following:
http://www.beatthegmat.com/pronoun-ambi ... tml#305959
check that out -- it should explain why this technically ambiguous pronoun is acceptable.

For (C), I kind of understand what you meant, but I interpret growing them naturally this way: there is a conventional way that suppliers to grow fish, and now suppliers grow fish twice as fast as (they grow fish in that ) conventional way. Can't the word "naturally" have such meaning?

if the suppliers are growing the fish, then, by definition, that's not "natural"; it's artificial.
"natural" (when talking about animals etc) = the way things happen in undisturbed natural settings.
so, no.

Then I think (C) is eliminated because 'growing' from (C) would introduce a wrong parallelism on suppliers are growing fish as fast as growing them natually, (as fast as) cutting their food ... and (as fast as) raising them ....?

nope, that'd still be a COMMA -ING modifier; that's not a parallel structure. the similarity in appearance is coincidental, and is completely without significance (these are two totally different -ING's; they are two grammatically distinct constructions, which couldn't be parallel even if you wanted them to be.)

these considerations are superfluous because that meaning isn't possible anyway (see comments above).
however, this grammar still wouldn't work: "as fast as VERBing" would only work if VERBing were a gerund (e.g., running is twice as fast as walking would work). if VERBing is part of a progressive verb ("are growing"), then "as fast as VERBing" isn't idiomatic.

[manhhiep2509]

Also am I correct in assuming that choice "A" is wrong because we are comparing "growing fish" with their "natural growth rate.".?

"...suppliers are growing fish twice as fast as their natural growth rate.."

you are correct, if what you meant was that a faulty comparison (BAD PARALLELISM again) is being made.

because 'are growing fish' is a verb construction, it needs to be placed in parallel with another verb construction. choices a and b don't do that (there's no verb in 'their natural growth rate').

Hi Ron.

I am trying to determine what are comparing in the sentence. Because the first side of the comparison is a clause, so I find it difficult to figure out what it refer to. I guess it does not refer to a rate of the growth of fish.

So, in choice A, what does the first side of the comparison -- "suppliers are growing fish twice as fast as" -- refer to?

a rate of the growth or something else?

Thank you.

[jlucero]

Hi Ron.

I am trying to determine what are comparing in the sentence. Because the first side of the comparison is a clause, so I find it difficult to figure out what it refer to. I guess it does not refer to a rate of the growth of fish.

So, in choice A, what does the first side of the comparison -- "suppliers are growing fish twice as fast as" -- refer to?

a rate of the growth or something else?

Thank you.

In this sentence, we are comparing
(1) how fast suppliers grow fish
vs
(2) how fast the fish grow naturally

This requires a full clause, because the subject of the sentence changes. This is what a lot of the incorrect answer choices do incorrectly (a/b/c). In A specifically, "their natural growth rate" is a nound/thing. So when you say "suppliers are doing X twice as fast as Y" you are comparing X vs Y: growing fish vs their natural growth rate.

Here's two examples that will hopefully help clarify:

OK 1: Suppliers are growing fish twice as fast as cows (fish vs cows)
OK 2: Suppliers are growing fish twice as fast as farmers are growing corn (suppliers growing fish vs farmers growing corn)

Again, in A, "their natural growth rate" is a thing, so it's more like the meaning in OK 1.

[ReshmaN101]

Hi Ron,

When I saw the question first, my first thought w.r.t option (A) and (B) was that 'their' is referring to 'fish'. From what I can recall,' their' is used for plural nouns and hence incorrect in this case. Was my reasoning correct ?

[RonPurewal]

the plural of 'fish' is 'fish'. (you'll sometimes see 'fishes', but mostly in archaic or biblical language.)

[sdfsdfsdfs481]

in (E) they grow naturally, with their feed allotment cut

Is the usage of , with their feed allotment cut correct in this context?
Does this usage belong to with + [noun] + __ing or comma + with + [noun] + __ing?

[RonPurewal]

in (E) they grow naturally, with their feed allotment cut

Is the usage of , with their feed allotment cut correct in this context?
Does this usage belong to with + [noun] + __ing or comma + with + [noun] + __ing?

by itself it would work in the same way. ('cut' is an __ed form, not an __ing form, but the two constructions would work similarly.)

in THIS problem, though, i sincerely hope you wouldn't be thinking about this at all!
you need something parallel to "raising them on special diets". so, between D and E there's a very clear winner and a very clear loser.

[sdfsdfsdfs481]

in (E) they grow naturally, with their feed allotment cut

Is the usage of , with their feed allotment cut correct in this context?
Does this usage belong to with + [noun] + __ing or comma + with + [noun] + __ing?

by itself it would work in the same way. ('cut' is an __ed form, not an __ing form, but the two constructions would work similarly.)

in THIS problem, though, i sincerely hope you wouldn't be thinking about this at all!
you need something parallel to "raising them on special diets". so, between D and E there's a very clear winner and a very clear loser.

As you say, I didn't think about this when solving the question. However the "with" structures appear in many places, and I want to know the usage of the "with" structures. The meaning of the "with" structures seem quite vague to me.

[RonPurewal]

my best attempt at an explanation is here:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p102567

really, though, this is one of those times when you should depend on developing an intuition.
just look at a bunch of (well-written) examples, and try to internalize how they work. it makes no difference whether you can articulate a 'rule', as long as you can consistently recognize correct and incorrect instances.

analogy:
let's say you've moved to another country with an unfamiliar culture. think about how you'll learn how 'rudeness' is defined in this culture.
...will you learn 'rules' for that? well, no.
...will you just observe lots of examples of behaviors that are considered rude, and of others that are considered socially acceptable? YES.
the point is that, after seeing a large enough 'sample size', you'll be able to predict for yourself whether some random act will be considered rude—even if you can't consciously explain why.
this is ultimately where your language studies should be headed (and is undoubtedly where you already sit, with respect to making judgments in your own native language).
yes, you will need at least some 'rules' at first, mostly as crude approximations to actual usage. but you should try to dispense with those as soon as your intuition is good enough.

[RonPurewal]

also, the other problem with '...with their feed allotment cut' is that it suggests that someone else (= NOT the fish growers) is cutting the feed allowance.

consider:

The vandals smashed the store windows and stole thousands of dollars' worth of merchandise.
--> the same group of vandals did both of these things.

The vandals smashed the store windows and thousands of dollars' worth of merchandise was stolen.
--> this sentence implies that SOMEONE ELSE (NOT the vandals) stole the stuff, after the vandals broke the windows.

these are not 'with' constructions, but the idea here is the same. if there's a weird switch to a passive construction—especially one that breaks obvious parallelism—then there should be a very good reason for that switch.