usage of DO - Please clarify the rule

[ngufo06]

Dirt roads cost twice as much to maintain as paved roads DO

What can be second DO replaced by ? It is costs ?

Also why is this statement wrong ?
Maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as paved roads DO.
why is DO in this statement not replacing MAINTAINING ?

please give me the rule here.

Thanks a lot.

[tim]

"do" replaces "cost" in the first example. in the second example, "maintaining" is a noun and thus cannot be replaced by "do". the best way to express the second sentence is "Maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as maintaining paved roads." you need to make sure the things you are comparing are parallel..

[abhinav.nigam.85]

Hi Ron/Stacey,

For option c
Is it possible that maintaining is understood in "as much as maintaining paved roads do (and here do stands for costs)?

[jlucero]

Hi Ron/Stacey,

For option c
Is it possible that maintaining is understood in "as much as maintaining paved roads do (and here do stands for costs)?

Not sure where you get option c here, without referencing a problem number. That said, if you want to use the expression "twice as much as" you need to compare the thing between "as X as"

As old as a rock
As rich as a Bill Gates
Costs as much as a rocket ship

When you add a modifier after much, you are putting this in the comparison. So:

X costs as much (to maintain) as Y does (implied: to maintain)

to maintain is between the "as X as" phrase, so it is implied in the second part of the comparison

[vjcongmt]

Hi,

Dirt roads may evoke the bucolic simplicity of another century, but financially strained townships point out that maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as paved roads do

In the above can someone please clarify why maintaining doesn't apply to paved roads because of parallelism ?

isn't the above the same as saying...
Dirt roads may evoke the bucolic simplicity of another century, but financially strained townships point out that maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as maintaining paved roads do

but OG provides the below explanation and dismisses this off stating that "Maintaining dirt roads is compared to paved roads in general". I dismissed the above option because maintaining is singular and hence requires a does(costs) instead of a do (cost).

Kindly correct my understanding.

-Vijay

[RonPurewal]

Hi,

Dirt roads may evoke the bucolic simplicity of another century, but financially strained townships point out that maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as paved roads do

In the above can someone please clarify why maintaining doesn't apply to paved roads because of parallelism ?

isn't the above the same as saying...
Dirt roads may evoke the bucolic simplicity of another century, but financially strained townships point out that maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as maintaining paved roads do

but OG provides the below explanation and dismisses this off stating that "Maintaining dirt roads is compared to paved roads in general". I dismissed the above option because maintaining is singular and hence requires a does(costs) instead of a do (cost).

Kindly correct my understanding.

-Vijay

if this reasoning were valid, then a comparison could contain just about any two constructions in the world.

you may be able to eliminate auxiliary things like modifiers and helping verbs in a construction, but you can't eliminate either of the two core things that are being compared!

[vjcongmt]

Thank you Ron.

[tim]

:)

[ghong14]

If the sentence said

Financially strained townships point out that maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as paved roads do.

I am not seeing why this is an incorrect comparison. Is it because it is comparing the cost of maintaining the dirt roads with the cost of paved roads?

[RonPurewal]

If the sentence said

Financially strained townships point out that maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as paved roads do.

I am not seeing why this is an incorrect comparison. Is it because it is comparing the cost of maintaining the dirt roads with the cost of paved roads?

that's why.

[ricardocs84]

Dirt roads may evoke the bucolic simplicity of another century, but financially strained townships point out that dirt roads cost twice as much as maintaining paved roads.

(A) dirt roads cost twice as much as maintaining paved roads
(B) dirt roads cost twice as much to maintain as paved roads do
(C) maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as paved roads do
(D) maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as it does for paved roads
(E) to maintain dirt roads costs twice as much as for paved roads

OA B.
I narrowed down to BCD.

But immediately discarded C because I thought (C) maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as paved roads do (cost).. not cost of MAINTAINING

Then I was in between B&D and thought (B) dirt roads cost twice as much to maintain as paved roads do (cost)?
TO MAINTAIN is in between "as much as" construction.

So I thought (erroneously) that the meaning in B could be either:

1... as paved roads do COST
OR
2....as paved roads DO COST TO MAINTAIN

OR EVEN A THIRD OPTION:
(silly one) as paved roads DO cost twice as much to maintain

Really I DON'T KNOW for what exactly "do" stands for in B, and HOW to learn this rule!! (I guess that is the 5th time that I got this question wrong!)

My reasoning was then by POE:
(D) maintaining dirt roads costs twice as much as it[maintaining] does [costs] for paved roads

Please any light in this issue would be really appreciated!

[RonPurewal]

Comparisons are comparisons. The whole point is that you're comparing things that can legitimately be compared. So, unless the sentence explicitly indicates otherwise, comparison sentences automatically compare things that are actually comparable to each other.

E.g.,
French bulldog puppies cost more than Samoyed puppies.
French bulldog puppies cost more than Samoyed puppies do.
^^ These sentences discuss the cost of purchasing the puppies themselves.

French bulldog puppies cost less to feed than Samoyed puppies.
French bulldog puppies cost less to feed than Samoyed puppies do.
^^ These sentences discuss the cost of feeding the dogs, not the cost of purchasing them.

You do need a certain degree of parallelism. (E.g., here, "do" needs a verb, "cost", to which it can be parallel.) Beyond that, though, it's mostly just common sense.

If for some reason you wanted to compare the cost of feeding one of the puppies with the cost of purchasing the other one -- for whatever reason -- then you'd have to write a sentence that's very specific about that intention.
E.g., It costs more to purchase a French bulldog puppy than to feed a Samoyed for ten years.

[ricardocs84]

Thanks Ron!
Awesome examples!
I think I finally got this rule,

Best,

Ricardo

[tim]

:)

[HanzZ]

Hello Ron,

If you don't mind I have a quick question about the correct answer:

Dirt roads cost twice as much to maintain as paved roads do

I'm just wondering is the DO at the end a helping verb, if so, is it unnecessary? In a similar question, OG12 #85, OG's explanation says repeating a helping verb is wordy (Choice B). I also remember having read similar comment from you in other post.

Could you please explain what's going on here?

Thank you in advance!