Change from an Affirmative sentence to a Negative one :
Old fools surpass all other fools in folly.

Question

Accepted Answer

Here's the explanation:

**Why Option 3 ("There is no fool like an old fool.") is the correct negative transformation:**

The original affirmative sentence, "Old fools surpass all other fools in folly," essentially states that old fools are the *most* foolish. Option 3, "There is no fool like an old fool," expresses the same idea in a negative way. It implies that no other fool is as foolish as an old fool, thus conveying the same meaning as the original sentence but in a negative construction. The sentence uses the negative "no" to achieve this transformation while maintaining the original sentence's core meaning.

**Why the other options are incorrect:**

*   **Option 1 ("Old fools are not to be surpassed by other fools."):** This sentence, while negative, focuses on the *act* of surpassing. It suggests that other fools *cannot* surpass old fools, which is a slightly different nuance than the original sentence. The original sentence emphasizes the *degree* of folly, not the possibility of being surpassed. It's a passive construction that doesn't directly reflect the active comparison of folly present in the original.

*   **Option 2 ("Old fools does not surpass other fools in folly."):** This option is grammatically incorrect ("does" should be "do" with the plural subject "Old fools"). Even if corrected to "Old fools do not surpass other fools in folly," it presents a contradiction to the original statement. The original sentence *asserts* that old fools surpass others in folly, while this option *denies* it.

*   **Option 4 ("There is no folly without fools."):** This sentence expresses a general relationship between folly and fools. It doesn't specifically address the *degree* of folly associated with old fools, which is the central point of the original sentence. It's a statement about the existence of folly in general, not a comparison of different types of fools.