If current trends continue, by the year 2010 carbon emission

[RonPurewal]

so, here...

if you tell that joke again, i will punch you

... it's "will", since you certainly can tell the joke again (though you would be ill advised to do so).

[harika.apu]

Hi Ron,

I cant understand the following:

also, the presence of a verb in choice a creates bad parallelism, because 'a level' does not have a verb. the two parts of the comparison must have the same grammatical structure; if the initial part (a level) doesn't have a verb, the second part can't have one either.

Can you change the question sentence into a correct construction that uses verbs in both parts?

Thanks!

sure -- here's one such version

If current trends continue, by the year 2010 carbon emissions in the United States will soar to a level that is more than one-third higher than was the level in 1990.

Hello Ron,
In the example you provided which uses verb in both parts
is it not the part after level (in the first part) a modifier (that is ...) .
Because i felt that was modifier , am unable to compare Subject-verb in first to subject-verb in second part .

Thanks for all help

[RonPurewal]

if This thing xxxxxxxx is a grammatically correct sentence, then a thing that xxxxxxxx is ALWAYS a grammatically correct noun+modifier.

similarly, if This person xxxxxxxx is a grammatically correct sentence, then a person who xxxxxxxx is ALWAYS a grammatically correct noun+modifier.

so, that should answer your question.

(if you were going to do a very formal—and very unnecessary!—analysis of the grammar, you would probably designate 'that' as the first subject. but that's needlessly fraught; the above guideline is much more straightforward.)

[MichaelL805]

First, be careful bumping questions. Every time you do that it puts the question at the absolute end of the queue for us to answer. Bumping a question is the most effective way to cause a delay in getting your question answered.

As for your first question, the main thing you need to do is find an antecedent for "that", which in this case is "level", so we're fine. We're comparing a level to a level, and we mustn't assume that both levels were in 1990 (in fact, if we did, the sentence would have an absurd meaning!).

Your examples 1 and 2 are wrong because they don't include a pronoun, so it's unclear what is being compared. 3 is wrong because if we replace "it" with "level", we are now comparing "level" (which is a noun) with "level was" (which is a clause).

Could someone elaborate on this? Why "that" is ok here, while in other sentence, "that" is not allowed.

And can " a level" be the antecedent of 'it'?

[RonPurewal]

the point of 'it'/'they' is to refer to the same people/things referenced earlier in the sentence.
these pronouns take the noun from earlier ALONG WITH THE SPECIFIC IDENTITY IN CONTEXT, and ALONG WITH ALL MODIFIERS that accompany the noun.

the point of 'that...'/'those...' is to refer to different people/things.
these pronouns take the noun BUT NOT THE IDENTITY/CONTEXT/MODIFIERS from earlier.

e.g.,
People want to look the way they do on stage.
SAME PEOPLE
this sentence means that people have been on stage at some point in their lives, and that they would like to look the same way again.

versus
People want to look like those on stage.
DIFFERENT PEOPLE
here, we have people who go on stage and people who don't. the latter people want to look like the former ones.

if you understand these examples then you should understand why you want 'that' here (not 'it').

[RonPurewal]

Why "that" is ok here, while in other sentence, "that" is not allowed.

i don't understand the question here.

given ANY construction in ANY language, it's ALWAYS possible to make an example in which that construction is wrong.

in other words, 'sometimes ok, sometimes not' is a valid description of literally every grammatically legitimate construction, in every language in the entire world.

[aflaamM589]

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 were those in 1990, according to official projections.
A. will soar to a level more than one-third higher than were those
B. will soar to a level more than one-third higher than that

Ron,
Why can't it be taken as the comparisons between emissions i.e emissions in 2010 compared with emissions in 1990?
those seems to stand perfectly for carbon emissions in the United States
and also seems to make perfect sense viz-a-viz parallelism.

What changes, in A, are required if we actually want to compare the emissions and not the levels?
Regards,

[RonPurewal]

that isn't what the words say.

the words say "...to a level more than 1/3 higher than _____"
so, to create a proper comparison, we need something in the blank that's comparable to a numerical "level". not emissions.

[aflaamM589]

that isn't what the words say.

the words say "...to a level more than 1/3 higher than _____"
so, to create a proper comparison, we need something in the blank that's comparable to a numerical "level". not emissions.

so if comparison between emissions is to be made then somewhat following construction is required:
emissions more than 1/3 higher than ____( another quantity showing emissions goes into the blank)
Have i got it right?
Best

[RonPurewal]

yes, as long as that stuff appeared in a larger context in which it made sense.

remember, you don't have to know how to WRITE comparison sentences -- you just have to find the parts and check whether they're parallel.

[tingc440]

yes, as long as that stuff appeared in a larger context in which it made sense.

remember, you don't have to know how to WRITE comparison sentences -- you just have to find the parts and check whether they're parallel.

dear Ron, i'm not a native speaker, and i have some questions about this comparison.
first, is 'more than one-third higher than that in 1990' a modifier to 'a level'?
second, i think the full structure is 'a level (that is) more than 1/3 higher than the level in 1990 (is)'. but i am confused about the tense. in my opinion, 'level in 1990' should use 'was' because it is something in the past. and once we choose 'was', it shouldn't be omitted...
can you please kindly correct me? thank you very much!

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

is 'more than one-third higher than that in 1990' a modifier to 'a level'?

Yes, it is. But why do you need to know this?

i think the full structure is 'a level (that is) more than 1/3 higher than the level in 1990 (is)'. but i am confused about the tense. in my opinion, 'level in 1990' should use 'was' because it is something in the past. and once we choose 'was', it shouldn't be omitted...

You're right, if we're talking about the past, then using a past tense is generally a good idea. However, since there's no verb before 'more than 1/3 higher', it's nice and parallel to have no verb before '1990'. The most important thing to remember about leaving out verbs in comparisons, is the meaning. Here, there's no ambiguity of meaning, so we don't need an extra verb.

[JbhB682]

Hi Sage -

Per another Manhattan Forum, regarding the difference between will and would in "If X then Y" constructions is the following :

- things that you think will definitely happen ('will') and
- things that either might happen, definitely won't happen, or didn't happen ('would').


https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p118898


In this case -- how can one be sure this trend will happen for sure .... isn't "WOULD" better as carbon emissions have not reached the predicted level

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Technically speaking, no statement about the future can ever be sure. We can make predictions with varying degrees of certainty, but there are no facts about the future.

I agree with Chelsey about the general division between 'will' and 'would' outlined out in the post you cite. Here, the writer is making a prediction about the future, based on the hypothetical situation of emissions continuing. Don't be fooled by including the doubt of 'what if emissions don't continue?' - that's a separate issue. The writer is stating a prediction based on that assumption.

As much as I agree with Chelsey about the general use of 'will' and 'would', it's worth knowing the three typical conditional constructions (using "if"):

If my friends visit, we will go out for dinner. (future)
If I were rich, I wouldn't have to work. (imaginary)
If she had bought a lottery ticket, she would have won a prize. (past)

Be aware that there are some exceptions to these forms, as mentioned by Chelsey in her posts and in the SC Strategy Guide, but these three cover the majority of situations.

[JbhB682]

Hi Experts - wanted to focus on the will vs would

Per the question, both 1990 and 2010 are both in the past tense.

Hence, isn't "Would" preferred given BOTH dates are in the past tense ?

Struggling to understand why "Will" is preferred over "Would" when both dates (1990 and 2010) are in the past tense in comparison to today (2021)