GMAT Questions - Soaring television costs accounted for more

[RonPurewal]

thanks ron.

you got it

[pmal04]

thanks Ron.
is it wrong to say '...a greater proportion than
that in any previous election.'??

[pmal04]

Bump=q

[ayushrastogi82]

by the way, this sort of modifier (COMMA + ABSTRACT NOUN) can be used to refer back to the WHOLE IDEA of the preceding clause.

let's say that scientists discover that X is 60 percent of Y, and that they are shocked by this finding.

then:
recent studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, which has shocked many in the scientific community.
incorrect.
this sentence implies that Y itself has shocked many in the scientific community. that's not true.

recent studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a finding that has shocked many in the scientific community.
or
recent studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a statistic that has shocked many in the scientific community.
these are correct.
the abstract noun "finding" or "statistic" may refer to the whole idea of the preceding clause.

in fact, that's the whole point of these modifiers. they are fatally awkward in spoken language (i.e., you can NEVER EVER say them out loud), but they do things that more "normal-sounding" modifiers (such as "which") aren't allowed to do.

for 2 problems that use this sort of modifier, see:
* #59 in the purple OG verbal supplement (in which this sort of modifier is present in the NON underlined section)
* #79 in the same source (in which it's present in the correct answer choice)

I have two questions here:

1. The computer company has announced that it will purchase the color-printing division of a rival company for $950 million, a part of a deal that makes it the largest manufacturer in the office color-printing market.

Here, Ron has explained that 'a part of a deal' (which is also a comma + abstract noun) modifies $950 million and that's why the above sentence is incorrect.
Refer: the-computer-company-has-announced-that-it-will-purchase-the-t2673.html

So, how can we decide whether modifier (COMMA + ABSTRACT NOUN) is modifying preceding noun or the complete preceding clause?

2. recent studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a finding that has shocked many in the scientific community.

Is the above sentence not a run-on sentence joining two independent clause with a comma?

According to me, it should be changed to
recent studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a finding that shocked many in the scientific community.

Please clarify these!!
Thanks!!

[ayushrastogi82]

bump

[anoo.anand]

Soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending in the presidential campaign of 1992, a greater proportion than it was in any previous election.

A. a greater proportion than it was

why is A wrong -> is it not referring back to Costs ? we are talking about costs here ?


B seems to say greater proportion than in ....

not lear.. this was the first qustion on prep 2 and got it wrong.. :(

[RonPurewal]

by the way, this sort of modifier (COMMA + ABSTRACT NOUN) can be used to refer back to the WHOLE IDEA of the preceding clause.

let's say that scientists discover that X is 60 percent of Y, and that they are shocked by this finding.

then:
recent studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, which has shocked many in the scientific community.
incorrect.
this sentence implies that Y itself has shocked many in the scientific community. that's not true.

recent studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a finding that has shocked many in the scientific community.
or
recent studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a statistic that has shocked many in the scientific community.
these are correct.
the abstract noun "finding" or "statistic" may refer to the whole idea of the preceding clause.

in fact, that's the whole point of these modifiers. they are fatally awkward in spoken language (i.e., you can NEVER EVER say them out loud), but they do things that more "normal-sounding" modifiers (such as "which") aren't allowed to do.

for 2 problems that use this sort of modifier, see:
* #59 in the purple OG verbal supplement (in which this sort of modifier is present in the NON underlined section)
* #79 in the same source (in which it's present in the correct answer choice)

I have two questions here:

1. The computer company has announced that it will purchase the color-printing division of a rival company for $950 million, a part of a deal that makes it the largest manufacturer in the office color-printing market.

Here, Ron has explained that 'a part of a deal' (which is also a comma + abstract noun) modifies $950 million and that's why the above sentence is incorrect.
Refer: the-computer-company-has-announced-that-it-will-purchase-the-t2673.html

So, how can we decide whether modifier (COMMA + ABSTRACT NOUN) is modifying preceding noun or the complete preceding clause?

2. recent studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a finding that has shocked many in the scientific community.

Is the above sentence not a run-on sentence joining two independent clause with a comma?

According to me, it should be changed to
recent studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a finding that shocked many in the scientific community.

Please clarify these!!
Thanks!!

your two examples both have the same type of construction: abstract noun + relative pronoun + verb.
(a finding + that + verb)
thus, they have the same grammar. the only thing you changed is the tense of a verb: "has shocked" (present perfect) to "shocked" (past).

the latter doesn't make sense, because the present perfect ("have shown") would be assumed to have taken place before the past tense ("shocked"). that is illogical, because the scientists' reaction can't precede the study to which they are reacting.

[ugenderr]

very nice explanation. Thank you so much.

What does it refer to in A

it doesn't stand for anything at all.

the only singular nouns that precede it are "spending" and "the presidential campaign of 1992". clearly, neither of these is an appropriate antecedent, so this choice is just wrong.

, and what does they refer to in C? Can we use have been in C? Please help, thanks!

"they" would have to refer to "soaring television costs", by elimination: there aren't any other plural nouns.

literally, this makes no sense, since television costs weren't "soaring" in OTHER elections.
(note that you MUST take the pronoun to stand for "soaring television costs"; you are NOT allowed to extract just "television costs" and pretend that the pronoun stands only for that.)

"have been" is an even bigger problem, though, since it implies the presence of "accounting". you can't do this unless the word "accounting" is actually present elsewhere in the sentence; it isn't.

[RonPurewal]

very nice explanation. Thank you so much.

no problem.

[direstraits007]

very nice explanation. Thank you so much.

no problem.

Ron,

I got this question in my Prep today and I marked A, reason being I thought "it" in option A is referring back to the "proportion" because "proportion" is a singular term and "it" can go with this term. So, it was like this:

A. a greater proportion than it was..

Here i thought we are comparing the proportion in 1992 to the proportion in previous year and so presence of "was" also made sense to me.
Please correct me where I'm going wrong in this approach?

Thanks!

~GeeMate.

[RonPurewal]

very nice explanation. Thank you so much.

no problem.

Ron,

I got this question in my Prep today and I marked A, reason being I thought "it" in option A is referring back to the "proportion" because "proportion" is a singular term and "it" can go with this term. So, it was like this:

A. a greater proportion than it was..

Here i thought we are comparing the proportion in 1992 to the proportion in previous year and so presence of "was" also made sense to me.
Please correct me where I'm going wrong in this approach?

Thanks!

~GeeMate.

two problems here.

first, you can't have exactly the same noun on both sides of the comparison, so "it" is barred from standing for whatever is in the other half of the comparison.

second, "it" must stand for a noun with all attached adjectives and essential modifiers -- you can't just cherry-pick the noun, leave the modifiers behind, and assume that "it" stands for that noun by itself.

example:
summers in las vegas are hotter than they are in providence.
--> WRONG
the intention here is clearly that "they" should stand for "summers", but it doesn't -- it MUST stand for the entire construction "summers in las vegas", since you are not allowed to discard the essential modifier.
therefore, this sentence unintentionally refers to las vegas summers that are in providence, an absurd notion.

(for people in other countries:
las vegas, nevada, and providence, rhode island, are two american cities that are thousands of miles apart.)

summers are hotter in las vegas than they are in providence.
--> CORRECT ("they" = summers)
this sentence would be better written as just "...than in providence", but it's also fine like this.

[sudaif]

What does it refer to in A

it doesn't stand for anything at all.

the only singular nouns that precede it are "spending" and "the presidential campaign of 1992". clearly, neither of these is an appropriate antecedent, so this choice is just wrong.

, and what does they refer to in C? Can we use have been in C? Please help, thanks!

"they" would have to refer to "soaring television costs", by elimination: there aren't any other plural nouns.

literally, this makes no sense, since television costs weren't "soaring" in OTHER elections.
(note that you MUST take the pronoun to stand for "soaring television costs"; you are NOT allowed to extract just "television costs" and pretend that the pronoun stands only for that.)

"have been" is an even bigger problem, though, since it implies the presence of "accounting". you can't do this unless the word "accounting" is actually present elsewhere in the sentence; it isn't.

Ron: sorry but i don't get your explanation as to why C is wrong.
what if it were "a greater proportion than they had been"?
also, you said that C was nonsensical if we used "soaring tv costs" as antecedent for "they" --- call me thickheaded, but not sure whatya mean by that....

[tim]

C is nonsense because it compares the soaring costs at one time to the soaring costs at another time. the appropriate comparison is the costs at one time to the costs at another time. if we changed C to say "had been" that would certainly be better than the answer choice as written, but it is still unnecessary and we would go with the OA based on concision..

[tuftsv]

from earlier thread shows that there is ellipsis of "proportion" in the Ans C.
would like to make sure if we can we use "that" to show "proportion?"
a greater proportion than "that" in any previous election.
tks.

[pradeepchandy]

I eliminated A, C by using the rule that

A pronoun in second part of comparison cannot refer to a subset of the noun its referring to

For eg (I read somewhere in Ron's post)

Blue ferraris are cooler than those which are colored red

- this means those = blue ferrari so it means blue ferraris which are colored red -

so sentence meaning is not correct in case we are trying to compare blue and red cars. The sentence ends up comparing blue cars which are colored red

The correct way to write is
Blue ferraris are cooler than red ferraris