In 1973 mortgage payments represented twenty-one percent of an average

I was between B and C.

I selected C. Actually I was much influenced by following question and I thought concise elliptical construction will work here as well.
according-to-public-health-officials-in-1998-massachusetts-59886.html

Further I rejected option B, because I thought there is no clear antecedent for the term the figure. I thought mortgage payment represented some portion is more symbolic than numeric.

I am not convinced that it is necessary to express these ideas in separate clauses and elliptical construction in C is not acceptable.

Experts could you please help understand me that why B is preferred to C.

In 1973 mortgage payments represented twenty-one percent of an average thirty-year-old male's income; and forty-four percent in 1984

A. income; and forty-four percent in 1984
B. income; in 1984 the figure was forty-four percent
C. income, and in 1984 forty-four percent
D. income, forty-four percent in 1984 was the figure
E. income that rose to forty-four percent in 1984

Source: OG-10

Dear Mike,
Could you please help me fine tune concepts to use elliptical construction. I tried to solve above question and selected option C, but that was not the OA.
I would like to know up to what extent we can elide information and what rules we should keep in mind while testing an elliptical part. OA says C is too much elliptical .

Dear Piyush,
I'm happy to respond.

First of all, here's a blog I have written on this topic:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/dropping-c ... -the-gmat/

Let me say, as official questions go, this is not the sharpest, and I completely understand why this question did not make the cut to our more recent editions.

The rough rule is: in the second branch of parallelism, we can eliminate any and all repeated words, that is, words repeated from the first branch of parallelism, IF dropping these words does not create any ambiguity. The only thing that would limit how many words we could drop would be if the resulted shortened sentence were unclear in some way.

Choice (C) drops all the repeated words. That's good. Does this create ambiguity? Hmmm. Maybe. In my opinion, I think it's rather obvious that percent is parallel to percent, but maybe someone could misunderstand this as a 44% increase over and above what it had been in 1973. Hmmm. I don't know. The only conceivable problem with (C) is if someone felt we dropped so much that it creates ambiguity of some kind. I guess it's ambiguous whether there is ambiguity --- I don't know whether that falls within GMAC's definition of ambiguity, but I know GMAC doesn't like ambiguity at all. Perhaps percents lend themselves to verbal ambiguity a little more readily than do most other topics. I don't know. I find "too much ellipsis" a weak and unpersuasive reason, in and of itself, as to why (C) is wrong.

I suspect it was precisely concerns of this sort that led GMAC to cutting this particular question.

Those are my thoughts. Any questions?
Mike

Thanks for reply. I think I should ignore this particular question and work on other recently published questions.
But I still have one last question: I would like to know to what the figure is referring in OA (B) ?

Thanks

Dear PiyushK,
The word "figure" is indeed a complex term with many meanings; it's one of the more complex words in the English language. One meaning is "a number," especially a real-world number in a social or political context. If, say, a politician cites statistics about unemployment or defense spending or polls, that politician is citing "figures."

Thus, the "twenty-one percent" in the first part of the sentence is a "figure."

Does this make sense?
Mike

In 1973 mortgage payments represented twenty-one percent of an average thirty-year-old male’s income; and forty-four percent in 1984.

(B) income; in 1984 the figure was forty-four percent
(C) income, and in 1984 forty-four percent

I have opted for B.
Ron explanation:-
"And" doesn't provide the stark contrast we want to emphasise.

1. A semi colon will entail a full fledged independent clause after the punctuation. A is gone.

2 Both sides of the conjunction and have to be // and balanced. C is gone.
3. Two independent clauses can not be joined by a comma; D is gone
4. Income that rose is wrong modification. The mortgage payments rose. E is gone

B remains dodging the above mentioned errors.

I do not understand why B is correct at all!

There is a rule that states a semi coln is only used when there are two independent clauses together.

Question: In 1973 mortgage payments represented twenty-one percent of an average thirty-year-old male's income; and forty-four percent in 1984.

If we delete everything before the semi colon, to result in only... and forty-four percent in 1984.
The second clause of the sentance has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

We could be talking about anything from the change in number of harvested oranges to the change in number of teeth pulled out by a dentist.

Can somebody please expain why I am wrong, regarding my semi-colon rule.

Thanks in advance

Yes, in choice A, if we delete everything befor the semi colon, the remaining is meaningless. That's why the choice A is incorrect.

In choice B, the full sentence is:
In 1973 mortgage payments represented twenty-one percent of an average thirty-year-old male's income; in 1984 the figure was forty-four percent

The second part is: In 1984 the figure was forty-four percent.

"The figure" here clearly refers to the representative of mortgage payments in an average thirty-year-old male's income. Hence, this part is full meaning.

In 1973 mortgage payments represented twenty-one percent of an average thirty-year-old male's income; and forty-four percent in 1984.

In 1973………….
Mortgage payments represented twenty-one percent of an average thirty year-old male’s income;
And forty- four percent in 1984.

Two time scenarios (1973 and 1984)
Subject is mortgage payments.

1) A semi-colon is used to connect two independent clauses.
2) Comma+ FANBOYS is used to connect two independent clauses
• Here semi-colon+ FANBOYS is used to connect independent clause to a phrase
• ‘and forty-four percent in 1984’- it is not even a clause as it has no subject and no verb.

A. income; and forty-four percent in 1984 (OUT)
B. income; in 1984 the figure was forty-four percent (CORRECT as mentioned in the reasoning above)
C. income, and in 1984 forty-four percent (COMMA+ AND CONSTRUCTION IS NOT CORRECT HERE)
D. income, forty-four percent in 1984 was the figure (TOO WORDY AND IS NOT CONNECTED PROPERLY)
E. income that rose to forty-four percent in 1984 (THAT refers to income of thirty year old male which is non-sensical as it did not increase.)

The answer is B

A is out as we have to connect two independent sentences with semicolon
B correct as the sentence after semicolon provides additional information .
C not correct although semicolon is not there but we do have a proper comparison 44 % of what.
D it awkward
E it was not the income that rose , it was mortgage payments.

in the ellipsis pattern, the cut off part must be one phrase, not two phrases at two places.
consider
I learn English in 2000 and (I learn) French in 2002
I learn English well in 2000 year and (I learn) French (well) in 2002 year

the first sentence is correct, the second sentence is incorrect.

is my thinking correct?

Hi mikemcgarry

Hope you are keeping well.
Is there any grammatical error in C? If not, would you be kind enough to explain why B is preferred?

Thanks and regards
RZS

The answer is B
A the use of semicolon is to join two independent sentences here what follows semicolon is a fragment .
B Correct it is an independent sentence
C gain wrong wrong parallelism
D run on it is written rather awkwardly
E now this choice might seem perfectly correct grammatically but there is a meaning error .It was not the income that rose but mortgage payments.

why c is wrong
it takes me a few hours to think.
i have one idea.

in eliptical pattern, the cut off part must be one phrase. it can not be two phrases at two places. consider

I learn english and french.
the cut off part is one phrase, "i learn french'

i learn english with my friend in 2000 and she French her friend 2001
the cut off part is " learn...with...in"
this is impossible. the cut off part is 3 phrases in 3 places.

our problem in c is similar

do you think so?

did i invent something from gmat questions.?

To establish the clearest comparison between circumstances in 1973 and those in 1984, a separate clause is needed to describe each year.

Choices A and C, in failing to use separate clauses, are too elliptical and therefore unclear.

Choice A also incorrectly uses and and a semicolon to separate an independent clause and a phrase.

Choice D incorrectly separates two independent clauses with a comma; moreover, the placement of in 1984 is awkward and confusing.

In choice E, that refers illogically to income, thereby producing the misstatement that income rather than mortgage payments rose to forty-four percent in 1984.

Choice B is best; two properly constructed clauses that clearly express the comparison are separated by a semicolon.

Whenever you see 'AND' after a comma, check for two possibilities :
1. a list(apples, carrots, and bananas)
2. two main clauses(I like India, and she likes South Africa)

Here, in option C, there is independent clause after 'AND'. Therefore it is incorrect.