<p>Ok, we'll go back to water.</p>
<p>I have a drop of water.
You have 2 drops of water.
You have "the greater amount", but you and I both have "little" water. "The greater amount" is not contrary to "little". You cannot use it where a contrast is needed.</p>
<p>NJPitcher,</p>
<p>You are changing the quantity. In your example, you are counting "drops," not water anymore.</p>
<p>Here was the sentence.</p>
<p>"Although the kangaroos are very similar, one requires little water, while the other requires the greater amount of water."</p>
<p>They could both in fact require little water, just one requires slightly more than the other. "The greater amount" is not contrary to "little water". That's the problem.</p>
<p>NJPitcher,</p>
<p>Let's look at three alternate versions of the sentence:</p>
<p>"...while the other requires more water."
"...while the other requires a lot of water."
"...while the other requires a little more water."</p>
<p>While all three of these may be stylistically better (and, in your mind, perhaps more "contrary" to "little water") than the original, they are still expressing the condition that the second kangaroo requires a "greater amount of" water. The meaning has not been changed. Logically and grammatically, there is nothing wrong with the original. Note as well that the logic of the sentence does not necessarily dictate that the second kangaroo merely require "slightly more" water. In fact, it could be much more water than the first. I just don't see a problem.</p>
<p>It does change. THE GREATER AMOUNT is not contrary to "little" water. "More", "a lot" and "a little more" are all contrary to "little". "A greater amount" is also contrary. However, "the greater amount" is not contrary. It is only contrary to "the lesser amount", or an extent.</p>
<p>You wouldn't say "Although Jim and John are alike, Jim is 3 ft, while John is the taller.</p>
<p>"You wouldn't say "Although Jim and John are alike, Jim is 3 ft, while John is the taller."</p>
<p>Actually, you could. It sounds a little awkward and it's not very elegant, but it's not wrong. You're trying to use the argument that something sounds "off" to indicate an error, but you have provided no evidence or convincing logic so far that it is indeed an error. You have not answered my argument that all the versions I proposed are logically equivalent and, hence, all correct. That is my point. Remember also that "the greater amount" can even stand alone in a sentence: "Of the two twins, Jim eats the greater amount of food." It does not need to be "contrary" to anything. Finally, merely indicating that one of the kangaroos requires more food IS in accord with the logic of the sentence and "while," whether the word or phrase used is "more," "a little more," "a lot," "a greater amount," or "the greater amount." Please address this fact in trying to prove your point.</p>
<p>I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but the sentence elaborated a little on each Kangaroo's requirements, saying how the first could live in drier areas while "the latter" had to live closer to sources of water, so the sentence was going for a definite contrast in diction.</p>
<p>Like I said before, there are little subtleties of the sentence that are not being conveyed because nobody can remember the sentence verbatim.</p>
<p>I am addressing the fact, it just seems to be going over your head. I will break it down for you.</p>
<p>Although (this right here tells you that what follows will be contradicted later on) the two kangaroos are very similar (OK, now we know that the next phrase(s) will show how they are not similar), one requires little water, while (this tells us that the next adjective should be an absolute, like "little", because "while" indicates that what follows should be contrary to "little") the other require the greater amount of water.</p>
<p>Hmmm. "The greater amount" is not contrary to "little". It is not logically equivalent to "a lot". "The greater amount" is logically DIFFERENT than "a lot".</p>
<p>Funny how I never once said it didn't sound right, you seem to be fabricating that yourself.</p>
<p>If you want to correct the sentence, you could say:
"Although the kangaroos are very similar, one requires little water while the other requires a lot of water." See how "a lot" is of the same adjectival category as little? "The Greater amount" is not equivalent to "little" or "a lot". Heck, I don't even think you could use "more". More does not exclude the possibility that they both require "little" water, in which case both would be similar, which makes the statement false.</p>
<p>You need to use absolute adjectives with absolute adjectives, and relative adjectives with relative adjectives.</p>
<p>Here. When broken down, the sentence has two parts:
Although the two kangaroos are similar, this kangaroo requires little water.
Although the two kangaroos are similar, this kangaroo requires the greater amount.</p>
<p>You could be discussing the same kangaroo.. However, if you use absolutes like "little" and "a lot", the two parts cannot exist together, allowing you to use the word "while":
Although the two kangaroos are similar, this kangaroo requires little water.
Although the two kangaroos are similar, this kangaroo requires a lot of water.</p>
<p>The two cannot be one in the same kangaroo. Therefore, you can compare the two in a logical sentence.</p>
<p>NJPitcher,</p>
<p>The only conclusion I could get from your previous arguments was that the sentence sounded "off" (although you never actually stated it), since none of your other reasoning had any force. "The greater amount" may not be EXACTLY the same as "a lot," but they serve the same function in the sentence -- to denote that the second kangaroo required more water.</p>
<p>I'm not sure where you came up with the rule that "absolute" adjectives must only pair with other "absolute" adjectives. For example, "John is a good writer, but his brother is an even better writer." I've just paired an "absolute" adjective with a "relative" adjective! There is certainly no need to write: "John is a worse writer, but his brother is a better writer." In fact, this sentence would contain a redundancy (and be wrong on the SAT), since the one comparative adjective is already sufficient to imply that one is better than the other (making the case that using two comparative adjectives in a sentence is not only unnecessary, but grammatically wrong in some cases). While it is true that using "little" and "a lot of" would distinguish the two kangaroos, using "little" and "the greater amount of" also does, since the sentence reads "... while the OTHER requires the greater amount of water." There is no ambiguity as to which kangaroo we are referring to, and it is quite clear that this latter kangaroo requires more water (offering the proper contrast to the first's requiring "little water"). Moreover, using "more" is entirely permissible, since this small difference (assuming that both required "little" water) may be enough to make them dissimilar. Again, I think you are over-analyzing the sentence here. I think perhaps you are stuck on the idea that the second kangaroo must require significantly more water to offer the right contrast, while it's sufficient that the second kangaroo merely requires "more" or a "greater amount of" (however small the difference) water to produce the necessary change in direction.</p>
<p>Zach, I agree that without the exact sentence, I cannot be entirely sure of the answer. It's quite possible that the accurate version of the sentence may lead me to a different answer. I am only giving my opinion on the sentence as it has been quoted here.</p>
<p>Of course we know which kangaroo is being reffered to. But here. The statemtn is trying to convey that the two kangaroos are different. If I say "the one requires little water, while the other requires the greater amount", they could both require little water, although one requires ever so slightly more. This doesn't prove that they are dissimilar. If one requires little water while the other requires no water, that shows us a difference.</p>
<p>Read my previous post. Additionally, "the greater amount" CAN imply a significantly greater amount of water, just as "a better writer" does not need any more qualifiers to contrast it with a "good writer."</p>
<p>You would not contrast a good writer with "the better writer" though. I really don't care anymore, we're not changing anything. But you would not contrast good with "the better".</p>
<p>NJPitcher,</p>
<p>Thanks for the spirited debate. For all I know, you can still be right, since I do not know the exact sentence. I would be curious to know what the right answer is. Anyone ordering the Student Answer Service (which is a report of which questions you answered correctly, incorrectly, and omitted) for the June exam? That would allow one to see what the correct answer should be.</p>
<p>Yea, debates are fun, but I have a massive research paper to write. I ordered the service, so I guess we'll know in 9 days (do I get that online? If not I won't be finding out until late August when I get back from being a counselor up at a sleepaway camp). Anyways, this post will be revived.</p>
<p>I ordered that</p>
<p>The College Board should simply throw this question out. As this discussion has demonstrated, there is no clear line between writing that is terribly phrased and writing that is mechanically incorrect.</p>
<p>I answered "the greater amount", and during the test I thought fairly extensively about the question. My conclusion was that "no error" was a very unlikely answer, because "the greater amount" is undeniably terrible phaseology. I doubted that the test-makers would include it, considering that it would distract students and force them to discern the generally fuzzy line between technically "correct" and "incorrect" grammar. In every other SAT writing question that I have seen, the answer is intuitively obvious to someone with a strong grammatical sense - why would the system change now?</p>
<p>Additionally, isn't there some sort of procedure where the test makers plot the frequency of each answer against students' test scores, thereby identifying (and throwing out) questions that otherwise high-scoring students tend to answer incorrectly? Maybe this is just my imagination, but I thought that I heard about it somewhere. If so, I think that if the answer really was "no error", this would be a disallowable question, since the vast majority of low-scoring students wouldn't be bothered by the sentence, while at least some high-scoring students (like NJPitcher) would be appalled.</p>
<p>While I'm at it, I might as well mention the parallel grammatical line of the thought that led me to my answer. It seems to me that the sentence would be technically correct if it included "a greater amount", but in "the greater amount", the article "the" implies a comparison with a lesser amount, which doesn't occur in the sentence.</p>
<p>A disclaimer is in order: I have no grammar training whatsoever, and am just following my intuitive writing sense.</p>
<p>lets just agree to let this question be...</p>
<p>randomperson...do you remember what u put for the "gardners and fertilizers" question...?</p>
<p>lol. albert thats the 27th you asked that question</p>