Test: Comparisons - GMAT MCQ

The original sentence incorrectly uses “Like” to compare two clauses: “Like many of his contemporaries did, Bob Dylan wrote songs.” “Like” can be used to compare nouns, but not phrases containing verbs (clauses).
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) As used in this sentence, “like” seems to compare the noun “songs” with the noun “contemporaries,” implying that Bob Dylan’s “songs” were similar to his “contemporaries.” This comparison is illogical, as songs cannot be compared with people.
(C) CORRECT. “As” is correctly used to compare two phrases containing verbs.
(D) The modifying phrase “Like the songs of his contemporaries” incorrectly modifies the adjacent noun “Bob Dylan,” implying that Bob Dylan is similar to the songs of his contemporaries. Songs cannot be logically compared with people.
(E) While “as” is correctly used to compare two phrases containing verbs, the subject pronoun “he” incorrectly refers back to the possessive noun “Bob Dylan’s.” Only possessive pronouns can be used to refer to possessive nouns.

This sentence has four errors. First, the subordinate clause “whose funeral was sparsely attended being buried in an unmarked communal grave” is awkward grammatically and ambiguous in meaning; the clause could be interpreted to mean that the funeral was sparsely attended at the time Mozart was being buried, or it could
be interpreted to mean that the funeral was sparsely attended because Mozart was buried in an unmarked grave. Second, it is not clear whether the possessive “Beethoven’s” refers to “funeral” or to “grave.” Third, the sentence makes an illogical comparison between Mozart and either Beethoven’s funeral or Beethoven's grave. Finally, the prepositional phrase “near the graves of Schubert and Brahms” is a misplaced modifier. Since it immediately follows “cemetery,” it appears to describe the location of the cemetery rather than that of the grave.
(A) This choice is incorrect since it repeats the original sentence.
(B) First, the subordinate clause “whose funeral was sparsely attended being buried in an unmarked communal grave” is grammatically awkward and ambiguous in meaning. Second, while the introduction of “funeral” makes the possessive “Beethoven’s” unambiguous, the sentence still illogically compares “Mozart” to “Beethoven’s funeral.” Finally, the past tense is used illogically in the clause “his final resting place was ….” Since this clause discusses Beethoven’s final resting place, it describes a state of being that is still true today; hence, the use of the present tense is appropriate to describe where Beethoven’s body currently lies.
(C) “Mozart” is followed by two clauses, “whose funeral was sparsely attended” and “he was buried in an unmarked communal grave.” The second of these clauses is incorrect because: 1) it should be a subordinate clause modifying Mozart, and should therefore start with "who was buried", and 2) it should be parallel to the first clause, and should therefore start with "who was buried", and 3) it should not make the illogical assertion that “Unlike Mozart, he [Mozart] was buried….”.
(D) This choice makes an illogical comparison between "Mozart" and "Beethoven’s funeral." In addition, the prepositional phrase “near the graves of Schubert and Brahms” is a misplaced modifier. Since it immediately follows “cemetery,” it appears to describe the location of the cemetery rather than that of the grave.
(E) CORRECT. “Mozart” is now modified by two subordinate clauses, “whose funeral was attended….” and “who was buried ….,” each properly introduced by the relative pronouns “whose” and “who” respectively. In addition, “Mozart” is now logically compared to “Beethoven.” Finally, the phrase “near the graves of …” unambiguously
modifies “lies buried.”

The original makes a comparison between car sales in 2004 and this January. However, the comparison is of prepositional phrases, which must be compared using "as," not "like," which is used to compare nouns. ("Like"
would be correctly used to compare one year to another, for example, "Like 2004, 2005 was a good year.")
Also, this sentence has an idiomatic error. The idiom “as often as” must be written out and cannot be contracted to “as often.” Finally, the phrasing "car sales to first-time buyers as often as to return customers" is awkward and should be recast.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice incorrectly uses the comparison term "Like." Also, the idiom “as often” is incorrect; it should be “as often as.”
(C) This sentence uses the correct idiom, "as often as." However, the pronoun “it” does not have an antecedent, as “sales” (as well as "buyers") is plural. Finally, "and it" weakens the syntax and meaning of the first part of the sentence.
(D) CORRECT. This choice clearly compares sales in the two years. The idiom “as often as” is correctly written and is placed in a comparison of actions (i.e., "first-time buyers bought cars") rather than in a comparison of prepositional phrases, which is more awkward.
(E) The idiom “as often” is incorrect; it should be “as often as.”

The original has an improper comparison. Comparisons must relate logically parallel elements. This sentence compares “the Civil War” to “soldiers in Vietnam.” It must compare “soldiers” to “soldiers” or “war” to “war.” In this case, it would have to be war to war because the meaning is that in those wars, Smith & Wesson equipped
soldiers.
(A) This answer choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) CORRECT. This choice correctly compares logically parallel elements: “the Civil War to the Vietnam war.” It contains no other errors.
(C) This choice does compare logically parallel elements: “soldiers in the Civil War and soldiers in Vietnam.” However, this comparison undermines the meaning because the meaning is that in those wars, Smith & Wesson equipped soldiers. Thus, the correct comparison would compare “war” to “war.” Furthermore, this comparison
is incorrectly structured; idiomatically, it should not employ “and soldiers” but should be structured “from soldiers in the Civil War to soldiers in Vietnam.”
(D) This choice does compare logically parallel elements: “soldiers in the Civil War and soldiers in Vietnam.” However, this comparison undermines the meaning because the meaning is that in those wars, Smith & Wesson equipped soldiers. Thus, the correct comparison would compare “war” to “war.” Also, the ending “to” is incorrect; idiomatically that comparison must be structured as “both the soldiers and the sailors.”
(E) This choice correctly compares logically parallel elements: “the Civil War and the Vietnam war.” However, this comparison is incorrectly structured; idiomatically, it should not employ “and the Vietnam war” but should be structured “from the Civil War to the Vietnam war.”

The original sentence draws an illogical comparison between “the population of ancient Rome” and “any city in the Roman Empire.” First of all, a population of one city can only be compared to the population of another city. Also, the second term of the comparison must refer to "any other city," since Rome was obviously also a city in
the Roman Empire.
The underlined portion of the sentence begins with a relative clause that describes "Emperor Claudius," a person. The relative pronoun "which" is incorrect, since "which" only introduces phrases that modify things.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice draws an illogical comparison between the “the population of ancient Rome” and “no other city” and introduces the wordy passive construction “was exceeded.”
(C) This answer choice states that the “population of ancient Rome” was greater than “that of any city,” rather than “that of any other city,” thus illogically implying that the population of Rome was greater than even the population of Rome.
(D) This answer choice states that “ancient Rome” was greater than “any city in the Roman Empire,” rather than “any other city in the Roman Empire,” thus illogically implying that the city exceeded itself. Also, by failing to mention the population as the parameter of comparison, this answer choice introduces ambiguity and fails to retain the intended meaning of the original sentence.
(E) CORRECT. This answer choice draws a logical comparison between “the population of ancient Rome” and “that of any other city," uses active voice, drops the wordy and incorrect construction “which was,” and retains the intended meaning of the original sentence.

The intent of the sentence is to compare counterfeiting today to counterfeiting in the past, using difficulty as the measure. In the original sentence, the comparison is correctly drawn between “today…counterfeiting is” and “it [counterfeiting] was at the time of the Civil War.” Additionally, the use of “despite” accurately conveys the main
point that although some new technologies are available, counterfeiting is nevertheless more difficult than it once was.
(A) CORRECT. The original sentence is correct as written.
(B) The intent of the sentence is to compare counterfeiting today to counterfeiting in the past. In this sentence, the placement of “today” after “high resolution scanners and printers” could lead to a misunderstanding about what occurs “today”: the equipment, or perhaps the wide availability of the equipment, rather than the counterfeiting itself.
(C) This sentence is missing “today,” which clearly indicated in the original sentence when the counterfeiting with scanners and printers occurs. The first instance of the pronoun "it" has also been dropped, creating an illogical comparison between an act, “counterfeiting,” and a time, “at the time of the Civil War.” A correct comparison could
have been between “today” and “the time of the Civil War”: “…counterfeiting is more difficult today than at the time of the Civil War…”
(D) An illogical comparison is made between an act, “counterfeiting,” and a time, “when it was estimated.”
(E) The point of the original sentence is that counterfeiting is more difficult today “despite,” not “because of,” the technology that is available.

The original sentence incorrectly says "can be roaring", when the appropriate present-tense verb form is "can roar". The sentence also makes the mistake of using a singular possessive pronoun ("its") to refer to a plural antecedent ("lions and tigers").
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) CORRECT. This choice corrects the verb problem in the original sentence by replacing "can be roaring" with "can roar". This choice corrects the pronoun problem by using the plural possessive pronoun "their" instead of "its".
(C) This choice incorrectly uses "who", instead of "which", to refer to lions and tigers. On the GMAT the pronoun "who" is reserved for human beings; animals and things are referred to using "which". Another mistake in this answer choice is the inclusion of the redundant word "differently".
(D) This choice makes the mistake of using a singular possessive pronoun ("its") to refer to a plural antecedent ("lions and tigers").
(E) This answer choice illogically makes it seem as if the hyoid bones of lions and tigers vibrate, and thereby create roaring sounds, independently of whether the lion or tiger actually wants to roar.
The use of the singular "a roar" is also inappropriate, because it appears to suggest that many lions and tigers collectively emit just one roar.

The original sentence contains a faulty comparison: it compares the military of the United States to Japan, rather than to Japan’s military.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice repeats the comparison error in the original sentence. Additionally, this choice creates a pronoun error by using the plural pronoun “their” to refer to the singular “United States.”
(C) This choice corrects the comparison error by comparing the military of the United States to “that” of Japan. However, this choice includes a pronoun error by using the plural pronoun “their” to refer to the singular “United States.”
(D) CORRECT. This choice correctly compares the military of the United States to “Japan’s”; although “military” is not explicitly stated, the possessive form implies that it refers to Japan’s military. Additionally, the singular pronoun “its” correctly refers to the singular “United States.”
(E) This choice unnecessarily shifts to the present perfect tense “has been larger,” which is not parallel with the present tense verb “shoulders” in the main clause of the sentence. Furthermore, a military is a singular entity, whereas “those of Japan” incorrectly refer to something plural.

The original sentence correctly makes a comparison between the income levels of working adults who were average students and the income levels of students who were exceptional students. These two elements are logically parallel, and thus should be structurally parallel. However, this sentence is problematic in its use of the term "those adults," since the pronoun "those" is both unnecessary and not parallel in this context. Also, the phrase “of exceptional academic abilities” is not precisely parallel to the phrase “of average academic ability” in the non-underlined portion of the sentence. As this sentence makes a comparison, the two elements should be as
parallel as possible.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice correctly uses "those" to refer to income levels, enabling a correctly framed comparison. However, it incorrectly uses the past perfect tense "had been," which is unjustified by the sentence and is not parallel to the simple past tense "were" used earlier to describe students of average academic ability. Finally, “exceptionally
able students academically” is both unparallel and awkward.
(C) CORRECT. The pronoun "those" is correctly used to refer to income levels, enabling a properly drawn comparison. Additionally, the simple past tense verb "were" is parallel to the verb "were" in the non-underlined portion of the sentence.
(D) This choice incorrectly compares income level to adults, rather than the proper comparison between income levels and income levels.
(E) This choice incorrectly uses the past perfect tense “had been," which is unjustified and also not parallel to the non-underlined simple past tense verb "were."

Demand in is preferred to demand for in such a usage. Like there is a lot of demand of IT professionals in the BPO industry, not FOR.
The original sentence contains several errors. First, "less availability" is incorrect when not used in a direct comparison: it begs the question "Less than what?" "Decreased availability" would be better here.
Second, "greater demand" also begs the question "greater than what?" "Increased demand" would be better.
Third, "Demand for scientific research" implies that the research is in demand, when in fact it is the platinum. "Demand in scientific research" would be better.
Fourth, "remains consistently expensive" is redundant. "Remains expensive" would be enough to convey the idea.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice is incorrect because while it replaces the "greater demand" with "increased demand," it leaves "less availability." "Demand for scientific research" should be changed to "demand in." The redundancy of "consistently" remains, and a illogical comparison is drawn between platinum and "that of gold." It is unclear what
the "that" refers to.
(C) CORRECT. This choice replaces "less availability" with "decreased availability" and "greater demand" with "increased demand." The word "consistently" is removed, and "demand for" is changed to "demand in."
(D) This choice incorrectly keeps "Demand for scientific research," which should be changed to "demand in scientific research"
(E) This choice is incorrect because, while it replaces the "less availability" with
"decreased availability," it leaves "greater demand." "Remains at a consistently high price" is redundant. It is also more concise to compare the platinum to the gold, rather than the high price (of platinum) to "that of the gold" as is attempted in E.

The word “although” at the beginning of the sentence signals that the underlined portion must draw a comparison between the impact of management decisions and the impact of government policy and industrial sector on a company’s performance. The original sentence correctly draws this comparison with the phrase “at least as
great an impact.”
UNNOTICED: Also, "government policy," "industrial sector," and "management decisions" are all correctly parallel (which is required because they are part of the same comparison).
(A) CORRECT. This choice is correct as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice tells us only about the impact of management decisions ("have a great impact") rather than drawing a comparison between the impact of management decisions and the impact of government policy and the industrial sector of a company. Also, “decisions by management” is wordy and nonparallel to “government policy.”
(C) This choice tells us only about the impact of management decisions ("have a great impact") rather than drawing a comparison between the impact of management decisions and the impact of government policy and the industrial sector of a company. Additionally, “manager decisions” is awkward relative to the more commonly used
term “management decisions.” Finally, decisions do not "impact on" performance; they impact performance.
(D) This choice tells us only about the impact of management decisions ("have a great impact") rather than drawing a comparison between the impact of management decisions and the impact of government policy and the industrial sector of a company. “Decisions by a company’s management” is wordy and redundant, as “a company” is repeated in the non-underlined portion of the sentence.
(E) This choice does draw a comparison between the impact of management decisions and the impact of government policy and industry sector on company performance; it does not do so in parallel form, however. The comparison also changes the original meaning of the sentence. In addition, the phrase “what a company’s management decides” is wordy and redundant, as "a company" is repeated in the non-underlined portion of the sentence.

First, the sentence begins with the comparison "unlike most other species of cat," which must be completed with another species of cat. However, the comparison is completed with "the claws of the cheetah," thus creating an invalid comparison.
Second, "regardless of being domesticated or not" is wordy and awkward. Third, the pronoun "it" requires a singular antecedent, yet the only available antecedent is "the claws of the cheetah," which is plural. Remember, "the claws of the cheetah" is not the same as "the cheetah" itself. Finally, "in that way" is casual and imprecise.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) CORRECT. The comparison is completed here with "the cheetah," creating a valid comparison. The pronoun issue is resolved by eliminating the pronoun entirely. The awkward phrase "regardless of being domesticated or not" is replaced by the more elegant "domestic or wild." And "in that way" is replaced by "in that respect," which is more appropriate to the tone of the sentence.
(C) The comparison is completed here with "the cheetah's claws," thus creating an invalid comparison. The pronoun "it" still lacks a viable singular antecedent. And the phrase "regardless of domestication or not" is no less awkward than the original phrase. This choice does, however, replace "in that way" with "in that respect."
(D) The comparison here is completed with "the claws of the cheetah," thus creating an invalid comparison. The pronoun "it" still lacks a viable singular antecedent. The casual phrase "in that way" still remains. This choice does, however, replace the awkward "regardless of being domesticated or not" with the more elegant "domestic
or wild."
(E) The comparison here is completed with "the cheetah," creating a valid comparison. The awkward phrase "regardless of being domesticated or not" is replaced by "domestic or wild." However, the pronoun "it" is replaced by "they," which refers to the claws and changes the emphasis of the sentence to a comparison of the
claws instead of a comparison of the animals, which was the intent of the original sentence.

The original sentence correctly contrasts "antigenic shift" and "antigenic drift" in a parallel format. In addition, the connection punctuation, a semi-colon, is used correctly to connect two complete sentences.
(A) CORRECT. The sentence is correct as written.
(B) This choice uses the incorrect comparison phrase "different than"; the correct phrase is "different from." In addition, the comparison "antigenic shift refers to..." is not parallel to "the natural mutation of... known as antigenic drift." Finally, the simple comma between "influenza" and "different" provides an inadequate transition between
the two parts of the sentence; the addition of a conjunction such as "and is" (e.g., "... influenza, [and is] different ...") is necessary here.
(C) The comparison "antigenic shift refers to..." is not parallel to "the natural mutation of... known as antigenic drift."
(D) This choice uses the incorrect comparison phrase "different than"; the correct phrase is "different from." In addition, the simple comma between "influenza" and "different" provides an inadequate transition between the two parts of the sentence; the addition of a conjunction such as "and is" (e.g., "... influenza, [and is] different ...")
is necessary here.
(E) This choice creates a sentence fragment by incorrectly using a semi-colon when the second half of the sentence ("in contrast to antigenic drift...") is not a complete sentence.

The original sentence contains a faulty comparison. “Nonfiction books” is either illogically compared to “the public’s appetite,” or improperly used to suggest that "nonfiction books" are examples of “documentary films.” The proper comparison should be between the public's "appetite" for x and its "appetite" for y.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) In this choice, "nonfiction books" is illogically compared to the public's "appetite." The proper comparison should be between the public's "appetite" for x and its "appetite" for y. Moreover, the use of the comparison word "as" is incorrect. "As" is used to compare verb phrases, not nouns; in this case, two nouns ("appetite" and
"interest") are compared so the comparison word "like" should be used instead.
(C) This choice logically compares the public's "appetite" for documentary films to its "interest" in nonfiction books. However, the use of the comparison word "as" is incorrect. "As" is used to compare verb phrases, not nouns; in this case, two nouns ("appetite" and "interest") are compared so the comparison word "like" should be
used instead.
(D) This choice logically compares the public's "appetite" for documentary films to its "interest" in nonfiction books. However, this choice incorrectly uses the plural pronoun "their" to refer to the singular noun "the public."
(E) CORRECT. This choice logically compares the public's "appetite" for documentary films to its "interest" in nonfiction books.

The original sentence begins with the comparison "unlike Mars." What follows must therefore be a logical comparison to the planet Mars. However, the sentence compares "Mars" to "the surface of Earth." This is not a logical comparison. We can compare "Mars" to "Earth" or "the surface of Mars" to "the surface of Earth," but it is
not logical to compare one planet to the surface of another planet.
(A) This choice is incorrect as it repeats the original sentence.
(B) This choice compares "Mars" to "Earth's surface," an illogical comparison.
(C) CORRECT. This choice compares "the surface of Mars" to "that of Earth," a logical comparison.
(D) This choice compares "Mars" to "water," an illogical comparison.
(E) This choice compares "that of Mars" to "Earth." In this context, it is not clear what "that of Mars" refers to, since there is no other possessive construction in the sentence.