the real problems with choice a:
- 'the ratio of 42 times' is redundant; it'd be good enough just to say '42 times'. note that the word 'ratio' is not redundant in choices c-d, since it's being used as a modifier to make a logical connection.
- it doesn't say 42 times what. not only is that unacceptably vague, but it also breaks parallelism.
i think the combination of "amount" and "as much as" would be tagged as redundant and therefore wrong.
i am not 100% on this, as the gmat's usage preferences are rather slippery at times, but there's no doubt that this suggestion is inferior to the version without "as much as".
shorter versions:
amount X is twice as much as amount Y --> inferior, and possibly even wrong (redundant)
amount X is twice amount Y --> undoubtedly better
注意：DE改变了原句的intended meaning！（做题时一定要仔细留心A选项的含义）
unqualified adj. 不合格的, 无资格的 // 无限制的, 无条件的;绝对的, 十足的==》这里取无限制的 这个意思
unqualifying adj.没有达到要求的
"unqualifying" means "not meeting some sort of standard for qualification".
the intended meaning here is "unqualified", which means "without any sort of restriction or reservation".
扫描二维码，直接登录
体会bc语义差异；c限制性定从，从句focus on “have”这个动作、b非限制性定从，从句focus on “require”