over 75% of the energy produced in france derives from

[josefdong]

A) while in Germany it is just over 33%

B) compared to Germany, which uses just over 33%

EVERYTHING here is wrong.

"compared to germany" isn't a valid comparison, because it's not parallel to anything.
france is tethered to the prepositional phrase "IN france", so it can't be compared to just "germany".

Hi Ron, as you mentioned above, is that "compared" different from other "verb-ed", which is used as noun modifier and should be placed next to the target noun?

Because if "compared" follows touch rules, it will modify nuclear power in Choice B.

And I found an example: He could then present an estimated price tag for phasing in these changes over time, and demonstrate that the costs would be modest compared to the enormous benefits.

So, can you explain the usage of "compared to/with"?

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron, as you mentioned above, is that "compared" different from other "verb-ed", which is used as noun modifier and should be placed next to the target noun?

In general, "comma + __ed" can describe the noun directly in front of it, but can also describe the subject (James collapsed onto the couch, exhausted from a long day at work).

But, yes, it's wise to think of "compared to/from" as a separate, special animal -- in terms of what you'll actually have to think about:
If you see "compared to/from", the issue is whether the comparison makes sense. The issue will NOT involve grammar.

And I found an example: He could then present an estimated price tag for phasing in these changes over time, and demonstrate that the costs would be modest compared to the enormous benefits.

This is an altogether different usage -- here, "compared to" is used as an adverb (describing "modest" or "would be modest").
I'm not sure whether GMAC would accept that usage -- they might, but they might not. They might want "in comparison to" instead.

[manhhiep2509]

B) compared to Germany, which uses just over 33%

EVERYTHING here is wrong.

"compared to germany" isn't a valid comparison, because it's not parallel to anything.
france is tethered to the prepositional phrase "IN france", so it can't be compared to just "germany".

also, the sentence doesn't say that france "uses" anything.

finally, "uses" isn't used logically here. germany "uses" the nuclear energy, but it also "uses" the energy that isn't nuclear!

Hi Ron.
First, can you clarify what do you mean in your last sentence "germany "uses" the nuclear....".
What is wrong when the sentence says "Germany, which uses just over 33%" even if Germany uses various types of energy?

Second, OG 13 explains that in choice B compares "75 percent" to "Germany". In previous post, you says "compared to" refers to subject of the sentence. So, it seems that OG says "75 percent" is the subject of the sentence, but clearly "the energy" is.
Please clarify the confusion.

Thank you.

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron.
First, can you clarify what do you mean in your last sentence "germany "uses" the nuclear....".
What is wrong when the sentence says "Germany, which uses just over 33%" even if Germany uses various types of energy?

This is basically a non-issue, since, in that choice, it's not even clear what the percentage means in the first place.

The only other percentage given in the problem is "75% of the energy produced in France". So, by default, any unlabeled percentage appearing in the same sentence represents another percentage of the energy produced in France.
So, you've got a sentence indicating that Germany uses 33% of the energy produced in France. Hmm.
(It's not entirely unreasonable that France could export energy to Germany, which is right next door, but that's clearly not the intention of the sentence.)

If you want to talk about percentages of different things, then you need to be explicit about exactly what the percentages are taken from. Since there's no clear meaning here, it's best to stop the discussion there.

[RonPurewal]

Second, OG 13 explains that in choice B compares "75 percent" to "Germany". In previous post, you says "compared to" refers to subject of the sentence. So, it seems that OG says "75 percent" is the subject of the sentence, but clearly "the energy" is.
Please clarify the confusion.

Thank you.

The subject is "over 75% of the energy...", so there's no disagreement here.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

pronouns must LITERALLY STAND FOR nouns. this means that, if you SUBSTITUTE the noun (with appropriate case changes if necessary), then the sentence must make literal sense.

therefore, as i already stated in this post --
"it" would have to stand for something like "the percentage/proportion/fraction of energy provided by nukes" -- a noun that doesn't appear anywhere in the sentence.

it can't stand for "the energy", because, upon substitution, that would create a sentence that says ...
in germany the energy is just over 33%
... which is nonsense.

Hi Ron,

Question 1: Going back to the "it" issue -- I realize that the pronoun has to refer to a specific noun. If we substitute "the energy produced" for "it" -- is that OK? Is "the energy produced" a noun clause and not a noun and that's why we can't make the substitution?

Question 2:Very early I looked for direct comparisons such as:

A) x % of energy compared to germany (wrong)
B) x% of energy compared to germany (wrong)
C) x% of energy compared to nuclear power (I thought this was wrong b/c of false comparison)
D) x% of energy compared to y% of energy(OK for comparison)
E)x% of energy compared with the energy(OK for comparison)

As you can see from my reasoning, I noticed the parallel marker and removed the correct answer choice because of faulty comparison. Why was I wrong and why is that an OK comparison?

Thanks Ron!

[RonPurewal]

Question 1: Going back to the "it" issue -- I realize that the pronoun has to refer to a specific noun. If we substitute "the energy produced" for "it" -- is that OK? Is "the energy produced" a noun clause and not a noun and that's why we can't make the substitution?

I don't know the terminology here ("noun clause"), so I'll have to skip that part.
Probably for the best, though"”you seem to be having issues here because you're thinking about terminology.

The pronouns "it" and "they" (and their various forms"”its, their, them, etc.) stand for a noun with all attached modifiers.
So, if a sentence contains "the energy produced is France", then it CANNOT just stand for "energy". It has to stand for the energy produced in France.
This is the entire reason for the existence of these pronouns"”to demonstrate that we're still talking about exactly the same thing.

If you want to just pick out the noun"”and leave out the following qualifiers/modifiers"”then you have to use "that" or "those" as a pronoun instead.
E.g., you can compare "the energy produced in France" with "that produced in Germany".

[RonPurewal]

Question 2:Very early I looked for direct comparisons such as:

A) x % of energy compared to germany (wrong)
B) x% of energy compared to germany (wrong)
C) x% of energy compared to nuclear power (I thought this was wrong b/c of false comparison)
D) x% of energy compared to y% of energy(OK for comparison)
E)x% of energy compared with the energy(OK for comparison)

As you can see from my reasoning, I noticed the parallel marker and removed the correct answer choice because of faulty comparison. Why was I wrong and why is that an OK comparison?

Thanks Ron!

While you've correctly identified "compared to" as a parallel marker, you seem not to have noticed that it's absent from three of the choices.

I.e., in choices A, C, and D, you are analyzing a construction ("X compared to Y") that's not even there!
Those choices contain "while"/"whereas". Those words connect entire sentences, and do not need to be placed directly in front of specific words.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Question 2:Very early I looked for direct comparisons such as:

A) x % of energy compared to germany (wrong)
B) x% of energy compared to germany (wrong)
C) x% of energy compared to nuclear power (I thought this was wrong b/c of false comparison)
D) x% of energy compared to y% of energy(OK for comparison)
E)x% of energy compared with the energy(OK for comparison)

As you can see from my reasoning, I noticed the parallel marker and removed the correct answer choice because of faulty comparison. Why was I wrong and why is that an OK comparison?

Thanks Ron!

While you've correctly identified "compared to" as a parallel marker, you seem not to have noticed that it's absent from three of the choices.

I.e., in choices A, C, and D, you are analyzing a construction ("X compared to Y") that's not even there!
Those choices contain "while"/"whereas". Those words connect entire sentences, and do not need to be placed directly in front of specific words.

As always, very helpful. Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

You're welcome.

[FanPurewal]

hi there

I am not clear about the usage of *while* (of A) .

The OG 13 says *While is somewhat ambiguous, since it might indicate simultaneity rather than contrast;*
Can I make an inference that *while* can only be used in emphasize some things happen simultaneously in the GMAT?

Thank a lot.

[FanPurewal]

D) whereas just over 33% of the energy comes from nuclear power in Germany

this sentence is written in a way whose meaning is at best ambiguous and at worst incorrect.

one possible meaning, if not the meaning, is that 33% of "the energy" (we don't know where this energy is, or where it's used) comes from "nuclear power in germany". i.e., the power itself is in germany (whatever that means), but "the energy" is we-don't-know-where.

Dear ron

I can't understand this explanation, since C(which is the answer) D E all have this structure "the energy".

But you didn't mention the differences between these things.

Can you please tell me the differences?

Thank you in advance!

[RonPurewal]

In choice D, it's only "the energy". From what? It doesn't say.

In choice C, it's "the energy produced in Germany". Note the clear—and absolutely perfect—parallelism with "the energy produced in France".

In choice E, it's "the energy from nuclear power in Germany".

If the modifiers are there, you can't just ignore them. (Think about real-life examples. For instance, "couples with children" and "couples" are certainly not the same group!)

[FanPurewal]

it is very very clear now! i got it!
but i still want to know this question, can you please tell me whether i am right?
thank you in advance, sir

hi there

I am not clear about the usage of *while* (of A) .

The OG 13 says *While is somewhat ambiguous, since it might indicate simultaneity rather than contrast;*
Can I make an inference that *while* can only be used in emphasize some things happen simultaneously in the GMAT?

Thank a lot.

[RonPurewal]

If "while" comes before a complete sentence, then, ideally, it should imply BOTH simultaneity AND contrast.
While HOV (high-occupancy vehicle) lanes do serve the laudable purpose of encouraging carpooling, they also reduce the number of lanes available to solo drivers, increasing both congestion and air pollution.

If "while" comes before a modifier, it serves only to indicate simultaneity.
You shouldn't send text messages while driving.