Why is "extremely longer" not correct (according to the ACT)?
The sentence that included the question was:
In addition, LEDs last far longer than standard bulbs.
Question: Which of the following alternatives to the bolded portion would NOT be acceptable?
F. considerably
G. a great deal
H. extremely
J. muchAnswer: H
"Extremely" is an adverb (and not materially different in definition from the other answers available) and should be able to modify the adjective "longer", correct? I don't have an answer explanation, so it's unclear why they chose this. Can someone please explain why this is the answer? Thanks!
Solution 1:
Extremely simply means very, and neither extremely nor very are used with comparatives, probably because English. I am sure no one would say *LEDs last very longer than standard bulbs.
Note that the modifier very cannot be used with comparatives.
- She is much older than her husband. (NOT *She is very older than her husband.) (English Practice)
You can use very much to intensify comparatives, but not very on its own:
We use very much not very to add emphasis to comparative adverbs and adjectives:
- Omah is very much better than Ian at basketball.
Not:Omah is very better than Ian …- London is very much bigger than Naples.
Not:London is very bigger than Naples.(Cambridge)
Now, if your next question is, Can we say extremely much longer, then?, I wouldn't go there... :-)
CaGEl records the same restriction in use of very:
Non-comparatives like young allow very, while comparative younger does not: it takes much, or (with submodification) very much, modifiers which are for the most part inadmissible with non-comparatives:
- very/ *much young
- much /*very younger (p. 548)
Quirk (A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language) also records
the restriction on premodification of adjectives and adverbs in the absolute and comparative degrees with very (see pp. 472-473).
So there you go. With extremely, it should be
In addition, LEDs last extremely long [not
extremely longer than standard bulbs] .