1.Wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain.

Is above sentence correct? Experts, Please let me know whether rule below is a standard one?

A comparison needs "than that of" or "than those of" only when it is comparing one possession or attribute to another possession or attribute. Generally the first item in the comparison will either be followed by a prepositional phrase beginning with "of" or be preceded by a possessive.
1 2
To be careful and formal, you normally need to include 'that/those of'; nonetheless, it is often omitted without adverse comment in many informal manifestations.
pokh1.Wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain.Is above sentence correct?
Guys Is comparison logical in above sentence? I guess its comparing Wild animals with FAT..Please clarify
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
pokh1.Wild animals have less total fat than that of livestock fed on grain.

Is above sentence correct?
It's a bit of a stretch. You're right. It does seem to compare animals with fat.

Wild animals have less fat than livestock fed on grain

is much simpler and doesn't suffer from the weird comparison the original seems to set up.

CJ
Wait a minute, wait a minute – how do you all come to that conclusion?

Wild animals have less total fat than that [= the total fat] of livestock fed on grain.

Wild animals have less fat than livestock fed on grain = Wild animals have more livestock than fat.

I agree with CJ, of course, that common sense will accept the simplified version, but I cannot see how 'animals' is compared to 'fat' in the original at all.
Mister MicawberWait a minute, wait a minute – how do you all come to that conclusion?

Wild animals have less total fat than that [= the total fat] of livestock fed on grain.
Wild animals have less fat than livestock fed on grain = Wild animals have more livestock than fat.

I agree with CJ, of course, that common sense will accept the simplified version, but I cannot see how 'animals' is compared to 'fat' in the original at all.
Sam runs faster than Ram does ---- Subject Sam is compared to Ram (subject)

Sam has more money than Ram has....... Again Subject Sam is compare to Ram(subject)

Consider,

Wild animals have less total fat than the total fat of livestock fed on grain.... Subject Wild animals being compare to total fats(subject)...Perhaps I am generalizing too much..

Thanks
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
I don't see it, sorry, pokh. Maybe common sense is working against me?
These are the structures that come to mind when I try to parse the thing. All seems to go well for me as long as I ignore the implied "have" at the end - and until I try to imagine what "that" could refer to.

Wild animals have less fat than pet dogs (have).
Wild animals have less fat than that of pet dogs.
Wild animals have less fat than that of pet dogs has.
Wild animals have less fat than (the fat?) of pet dogs has.
Wild animals have less fat than (the wild animals?) of pet dogs has.

The following seem analogous to me. Both in the group above and in the two groups below, only the first example seems right to me.

Sue has less appeal than Jane (has).
Sue has less appeal than that of Jane (has).
Sue has less appeal than Jane's (appeal?) (has).

I have less money than you (have).
I have less money than yours (has).

CJ
( Mister M runs screaming into the sunset and is never seen on this thread again...)
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Show more