Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
A new hair-growing drug is being sold for three times the price, per milligram, as the drugâ€™s maker charges for another product with the same active ingredient.
A. as B. than C. that D. of what E. at which
Excuse me, I've reviewed all of the discussion before, could anybody tell me why the choice C is erroneous.
It helps to simplify this sentence, especially since some folks are being confused by the commas. This re-write eliminates the unnecessary adjective phrases but does not affect the issues at hand:
A drug is being sold for three times the price -------- the drugmaker charges for another product.
I think this question is very inconclusive.
First, you don't need to fill in the blank at all. Read the above sentence and don't fill in the blank. The sentence is fine without any of the answer choices.
Second, I am not aware of any reason THAT would be incorrect. It's a conjuntion linking two clauses:
X is being sold for three times the price THAT the drugmaker charges for Y.
That seems OK to me.
Third, I think that OF WHAT is a bit awkward but it seems grammatically correct and idiomatic:
X is being sold for three times the price of Y
Here, instead of having a conjuntion link two clauses, you have a preposition "of" and an object of the preposition Y being the phrase "what the drugmaker charges for another product".
This also seems correct to me.
So ... I think there are 3 equally acceptable ways to do this one: (C), (D), and no words there at all. And therefore I would personally guess that this is not a legit ETS question, and would not be on an actual GMAT.
supercat, I love reading your analysis of SC
I would have to agree with you that all 3 versions are acceptable although the third "of what" does seem and sound awkward. I would have picked C because it follows a fair idiom "X times the price that Z charges...". I strongly believe also that this is one of the poor quality questions that one should not get bothered with. You do not need to overanalyze this one. _________________
The word "that" could be either used as a) linking conjuction or b) introducing restrictive clause.
I've always wondered why sometimes "that" replaces a "noun" in somecases and in other cases it doesnt. You dont replace "that" with a noun when you use it as a linking conjuction, correct? For e.g.
X is being sold for three times the price THAT the drugmaker charges for Y ---> In this example "that" links 2 clauses and it doesnt really represent/replace any "noun". It just does the job of a conjuction - linking 2 clauses.
But lots of times "that" could be as introducing a restrictive clause.
Example #2: Dogs that have 3 legs learn to hop and not run.
In example #2 "that" refers to dogs with 3 legs. It's essentially a "relative pronoun" representing the noun clause "dogs with 3 legs".
You are right. Among the many functions played by "that", two of them are that of a relative pronoun and conjunction. If we are introducing a restrictive clause, "that" will play the role of a relative pronoun so that the following clause becomes "necessary" as implied by "restrictive". In many idioms such as "so... that/such...that/etc", "that" will play the role of a conjunction. Your examples are fine except for the second one where you should have used another conjunction instead of "that" to denote the contrast you wanted to imply _________________
You are right. Among the many functions played by "that", two of them are that of a relative pronoun and conjunction. If we are introducing a restrictive clause, "that" will play the role of a relative pronoun so that the following clause becomes "necessary" as implied by "restrictive". In many idioms such as "so... that/such...that/etc", "that" will play the role of a conjunction. Your examples are fine except for the second one where you should have used another conjunction instead of "that" to denote the contrast you wanted to imply
Thanks for the explanation Paul. I have a follow up question. When "that" is used to introduce a relative clause it [it = that] assumes the role of subject becuase it [it=that] is a relative pronoun, no?
E.g: The dog that ate my homework puked and fell sick.
Here "that", acting as a relative pronoun, represents the "dog who ate my homework";
Therefore: Subject = "The dog who ate my homework" represented by "that"
predicate = puked and fell sick. With "puked and fell" acting as a verb of the subject.
Now my question is the following:
what happens when the "relative clause itself has another noun".
One of the informants eventually professed ignorance of the crime, for fear that his testimony would lead to reprisals against him by his former confederates
Let weed out the IC in blue.
For = subordinating conjuction.
Lets look at the following: For Fear that his testimony would lead to reprisals against him by his former confederates.
Here "that" introduces a relative clause ---> "his testimony would lead to reprisals against him by his former conferedates".
How do the rules of relative pronoun/relative clause change when you already have another noun [in this case the word "his"] and if so what is the "relative pronoun" really referring to? I'm guessing the relative pronoun must "encompass the noun" introduced in the restrictive clause, correct? For e.g.
Well, there is a flaw with your reasoning. When using words like "his/her", and the latter are followed by a noun, "his/her" will be considered adjectives. Only when they are not followed by a noun will they be considered pronouns. Two examples:
I read his book --> "his" is considered an adjective, not a pronoun, because you can basically replace it by "the blue" and it would be a word qualifying "book".
The book is his --> "his" here is used as a pronoun because it replaces a noun. You could replace it by "Richard's" and you immediately see why it is a pronoun.
Well, I agree that for example 1, you could have said " I read Richard's book" and considered "his" a pronoun but you can't because the rule is that when it is followed by a noun and CAN be replaced by an adjective, it will be an adjective.
Getting back to your example, you can see how "his" is used as an adjective because noun "testimony" follows it. Hence, because "his" is an adjective, it is not referring to anything; it merely gives extra information. _________________