If current trends continue, by the year 2010 carbon emission

[jlucero]

Let us know if there are any more questions here.

[SC312]

Ron,

You have mentioned in one of your posts "the two parts of the comparison must have the same grammatical structure".

Does this apply to even prepositional phrases that follow a "than", indicating two parallel comparable things.

I came across this problem (OG Verbal Review -2nd edition-Q 98 ) of "Napolean's army", in which the correct choice doesn't seem to have this parallel structure. Can you please explain how it works in this case ?

Thanks

[RonPurewal]

SC312, good question.

That observation applies only if the comparison explicitly contains the two items/situations/circumstances being compared.

If one of those two is located elsewhere in the sentence (or is implied), then there is no such requirement.

In the Napoleon example, the comparison is between the Russia campaign and other campaigns.
The mention of Russia occurs outside the actual comparison construction, so there's no requirement of similar structure.

By "implied", I'm talking about sentences like It seems that there is much more traffic than usual. In this sentence, it's "today" vs. "usual situation", but "today" is merely implied (by the present-tense observation). So, nothing to put in parallel here, either.

[RonPurewal]

In general, if you face such nontraditional comparisons"”i.e., comparisons that don't actually involve two parallel structures"”you should look elsewhere for things to eliminate.
The Napoleon problem, for instance, can be solved entirely on the basis of pronoun issues.

[SC312]

Thanks Ron

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[AbhilashM94]

ONE reason C is wrong is indeed because the "it" doesn't have a proper antecedent to attach to..

stuck between B & C

In C, what can IT possibly refer to. Everything is plural in the sentence.

I'm confused about pronoun ambiguity - at some times instructors suggest not to pay too much attention to it.

[RonPurewal]

You're misunderstanding what "ambiguity" means.

"Pronoun ambiguity" is a situation in which there are two or more legitimate possibilities for the referent of a pronoun"”"”and in which the context doesn't clearly favor one or the other of them.
E.g.,
Brenda was talking to Jane about her husband's friends.
Here, "her husband" could be either Brenda's or Jane's. It's absolutely impossible to tell.

This is "pronoun ambiguity", which the GMAT does not test at all.

[RonPurewal]

"Doesn't have an antecedent" has nothing whatsoever to do with "ambiguity". If a pronoun doesn't have an antecedent, then it's wrong.

E.g.,
In Colombia, they eat potatoes daily.
Here, "they" doesn't have an antecedent (= noun). The antecedent is clearly supposed to be "Colombians" or "people in Colombia", but those words are not there. So, "they" is wrong.

[SC312]

Ron,
Although I understand why B) is the best option, I wanted to know if the grammatical structure of D) is correct ?

Can we read it like this :

If current trends continue, by the year 2010 carbon emissions in the United States will soar to a level more than one-third higher than those(Carbon emissions of 1990) [did] in 1990, according to official projections.

Thanks
Sudipto

[RonPurewal]

If you have "a level more than 1/3 higher than ____", then "___" needs to be another level.

[mybecker]

By "implied", I'm talking about sentences like It seems that there is much more traffic than usual. In this sentence, it's "today" vs. "usual situation", but "today" is merely implied (by the present-tense observation). So, nothing to put in parallel here, either.

Ron, is it better to say:
It seems that there is much more traffic than usually
It seems that there is much greater traffic than usual [traffic]

I trying to understand whether it was a typo :)

[RonPurewal]

Not a typo. "...than usual" is correct.

Try googling "than usual" (with the quotes).

Weird, yes.

[benjamindian]

you need 'will', not 'would'. 'would' is used if the hypothetical is in the past tense, while 'will' (future tense) is used if the hypothetical is in the present tense (as is the case here).
compare: if you tell that joke again, i will punch you.
that takes care of the last three answer choices.

Hi Ron,

You once said:
"actually, whenever a situation is purely HYPOTHETICAL, "would" is better than "will", even if the if-clause is rendered in the present tense." (http://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/several-educational-research-groups-are-denouncing-the-mayor-t3772.html)

So I think, in this hypothetical situation, both "will" and "would" are fine. I eliminated A,D, and E, all of them containing plural pronouns, because the author is comparing "a level". Between B and C, C is out because "level" is an object in the first part and thus "it" can't be followed by a verb. So choose B.

Please comment. Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

ah, but there's a difference.

in the link, i'm talking about a possibility that is PURELY hypothetical——i.e., something that, given current conditions, can't happen.
Under the proposed law, a driver would lose his/her license for life if he/she is convicted of drunk driving more than once.
currently this can't happen, since the law has only been proposed; it's not actually a law yet.

if this law were passed and went into effect, we would then write Under the new law, a driver will lose his/her license for life if he/she is convicted of drunk driving more than once.
... because now this can actually happen.