Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 21 Aug 2014, 18:19

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Oct 2012
Posts: 32
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 15

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink] New post 09 Jan 2013, 02:12
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  15% (low)

Question Stats:

81% (01:48) correct 19% (01:13) wrong based on 175 sessions
Hi, this question has been posted before, but regarding a different point of grammar, hence starting a new thread.

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

(A) a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing

(B) a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing

(C) a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written

(D) which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing

(E) which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written

The correct answer is B. However, does the verb tense make sense? The phenomenon was in 2000, but it is explained by 2 factors that are happening now? (doctors are writing... drugs are becoming...)

Anyone have any thoughts? Thanks!
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
Expert Post
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 2367
Followers: 266

Kudos [?]: 2245 [0], given: 690

Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink] New post 09 Jan 2013, 03:17
Expert's post
tcsing wrote:
Hi, this question has been posted before, but regarding a different point of grammar, hence starting a new thread.

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

(A) a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing

(B) a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing

(C) a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written

(D) which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing

(E) which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written

The correct answer is B. However, does the verb tense make sense? The phenomenon was in 2000, but it is explained by 2 factors that are happening now? (doctors are writing... drugs are becoming...)

Anyone have any thoughts? Thanks!



here aside the verb tense a lot is a question of meaning

ONly B has sense because the phenomenon (by the way singular, phenomena is plural) is caused by the FACT that drugs are more expensive and by the FACT that doctors do something else.

;)
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS
Quant: 1. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 2. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 3. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version
Verbal:1. Best EXTERNAL resources to tackle the GMAT Verbal Section 2. e-GMAT's ALL CR topics-Consolidated 3. New Critical Reasoning question bank by carcass 4. Meaning/Clarity SC Question Bank by Carcass_Souvik 5. e-GMAT's ALL SC topics-Consolidated-2nd Edition 6. The best reading to improve Reading Comprehension
7. MY VERBAL QUESTION BANK

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 09 Nov 2012
Posts: 170
GMAT 1: 700 Q43 V42
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 29

Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink] New post 09 Jan 2013, 10:38
B

Answer choices A, C, D, and E all fail to correctly use the idiom "not just, but also". B is the only answer choice that correctly uses that idiom. The verb tense is correct and makes sense.

I hope that helps :)
_________________

If my post helped you, please consider giving me kudos.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 454
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 39

GMAT Tests User
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink] New post 09 Jan 2013, 21:04
YES, I also think that tense in B is not suitable. But we choose the best.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Oct 2012
Posts: 32
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 15

Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink] New post 09 Jan 2013, 21:29
Thanks for all the help guys! :)
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: IIBA
Joined: 04 Sep 2010
Posts: 61
Location: India
Schools: HBS, Stanford, Stern, Insead, ISB, Wharton, Columbia
WE 1: Information Technology (Banking and Financial Services)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink] New post 14 Jan 2013, 16:13
tcsing wrote:

The correct answer is B. However, does the verb tense make sense? The phenomenon was in 2000, but it is explained by 2 factors that are happening now? (doctors are writing... drugs are becoming...)

Anyone have any thoughts? Thanks!


Even I feel that verb tense is not correct. Can an expert reply on the question posed by first poster ?
_________________

~soaringAlone
~Live fast, die young and leave a marketable corpse behind !!

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 454
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 39

GMAT Tests User
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink] New post 14 Jan 2013, 20:42
first thing

the tense in B make me uaeasy. "are writing " and "are more expensive" can go with past tense

pls explain.

second thing

normally we see

not only........ but also

now in oa in this problem. we see

not..........but also

I infer that "not.....but also" is acceptable

though "not only....but" is not acceptable

is my thinking correct?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Prevent and prepare. Not repent and repair!!
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Posts: 278
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.75
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 282

Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink] New post 01 Mar 2013, 22:55
parallelism and Idiom is what I looked out for. B is the answer choice.
_________________

I've failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed--Michael Jordan
Kudos drives a person to better himself every single time. So Pls give it generously
Wont give up till i hit a 700+

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 12

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the [#permalink] New post 25 Jul 2013, 10:53
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs,
a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are
writing
many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

below is the correct choice:

a phenomenon that is explained not just by the
fact that drugs are becoming more expensive
but also by the fact that doctors are writing



MY question is : regarding the subordinate clause in this question:

1. a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing

a phenomenon ...should start a subordinate clause(because it is after comma ),but I cannot find the verb after a phenomenon (the subject and verb are inside "THAT" clause)


2. but also by the fact that doctors are writing

but ...should start a subordinate clause ..here also no subject and verb (the subj and verb are inside "THAT"clause)
VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1125
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Followers: 112

Kudos [?]: 1127 [0], given: 219

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User
Re: OG Q83 [#permalink] New post 25 Jul 2013, 11:16
ajmalshams wrote:
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs,
a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are
writing
many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

below is the correct choice:

a phenomenon that is explained not just by the
fact that drugs are becoming more expensive
but also by the fact that doctors are writing



MY question is : regarding the subordinate clause in this question:

1. a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing

a phenomenon ...should start a subordinate clause(because it is after comma ),but I cannot find the verb after a phenomenon (the subject and verb are inside "THAT" clause)


2. but also by the fact that doctors are writing

but ...should start a subordinate clause ..here also no subject and verb (the subj and verb are inside "THAT"clause)


In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

This is an example of "appositive modifier". This kind of modifier refer to either a specific noun or to the whole concept of the preceding clause; here because "a phenomenon" is an abstract noun we are in the second scenario, hence this modifier will refer to the whole clause.

1) Yes, it does have a verb
a phenomenon that is explained not just by the

2)Yes, there is a verb
but also by the fact that doctors are writing

the construct of the sentence is: a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that X but also by the fact that Y.

Hope it's clear
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 12

Re: OG Q83 [#permalink] New post 25 Jul 2013, 11:49
Zarrolou wrote:
ajmalshams wrote:
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs,
a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are
writing
many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

below is the correct choice:

a phenomenon that is explained not just by the
fact that drugs are becoming more expensive
but also by the fact that doctors are writing



MY question is : regarding the subordinate clause in this question:

1. a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing

a phenomenon ...should start a subordinate clause(because it is after comma ),but I cannot find the verb after a phenomenon (the subject and verb are inside "THAT" clause)


2. but also by the fact that doctors are writing

but ...should start a subordinate clause ..here also no subject and verb (the subj and verb are inside "THAT"clause)


In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

This is an example of "appositive modifier". This kind of modifier refer to either a specific noun or to the whole concept of the preceding clause; here because "a phenomenon" is an abstract noun we are in the second scenario, hence this modifier will refer to the whole clause.

1) Yes, it does have a verb
a phenomenon that is explained not just by the

2)Yes, there is a verb
but also by the fact that doctors are writing

the construct of the sentence is: a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that X but also by the fact that Y.
"a phenomenon that is explained" has subject and verb, and also X and Y have their own subjects and verbs (see above).

The fact that the verbs are inside "that", does not mean that the subject is without a verb.

Hope it's clear




my doubt is

"that" starts another subordinate clause right ??

so how can the subject and verb for "that" clause be the subject and verb for the clause starting with "a phenomenon"
1 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1125
Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Followers: 112

Kudos [?]: 1127 [1] , given: 219

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User
Re: OG Q83 [#permalink] New post 25 Jul 2013, 12:13
1
This post received
KUDOS
ajmalshams wrote:
my doubt is

"that" starts another subordinate clause right ??

so how can the subject and verb for "that" clause be the subject and verb for the clause starting with "a phenomenon"


Oh, I got what you mean.

This appositive modifier is actually an appositive phrase, and keep in mind that an appositive modifier is a single noun.
Cesar, the roman emperor, conquered (...)<== this is fine, and " the roman emperor" is not a clause.

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon
now till here you have "a phenomenon", not really explanatory, the next part "that is explained not just (...)" modifies the noun "phenomenon"

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon(noun) + modifier
the resulting thing is something of this form noun+modifier which is a case of appositive phrase.

Hope I've explained myself well
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Looking to improve
Joined: 15 Jan 2013
Posts: 177
GMAT 1: 530 Q43 V20
GMAT 2: 560 Q42 V25
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 65

Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink] New post 25 Jul 2013, 13:44
Just to supplement excellent explanation from Zarrolou

A modifier can be a word (adjective, adverb), phrase (prepositional, noun), or clause (which, that). Here the sentence is using noun modifier.

Hope this helps
_________________

KUDOS is a way to say Thank You

2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 204
Location: Bangalore, India
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 38 [2] , given: 2

Re: OG Q83 [#permalink] New post 25 Jul 2013, 23:10
2
This post received
KUDOS
ajmalshams wrote:
my doubt is

"that" starts another subordinate clause right ??

so how can the subject and verb for "that" clause be the subject and verb for the clause starting with "a phenomenon"


Actually clause starting with "a phenomenon" is not a clause at all!! It's a phrase. Let's take an example:

ajmalshams is studying for GMAT, a competitive exam.
- Hopefully it is easy for you to see that "a competitive exam" is a phrase (and not a clause).

Now lets look at the following sentence:

ajmalshams is studying for GMAT, a competitive exam that is tough to crack .
- Again, the above sentence, at the "core" is same as the previous one; just that the subordinate clause that is tough to crack is modifying a competitive exam. So, a competitive exam that is tough to crack still acts as a phrase.

Also, when Zarrolou says "appositive phrase", perhaps (s)he means "absolute phrase". In SC, it is very essential that test takers get very comfortable with "absolute phrases". Since the structure of "absolute phrase" is so "non-intuitive", GMAT loves to test on that. Few examples from OG:

#102, OG-13:
Yellow jackets number among the 900 or so species of the world's social wasps, wasps that live in a highly cooperative and organized society consisting almost entirely of females—the queen and her sterile female workers.

#38, OG-12:
In 1850, Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women and for changes in the married women’s property laws.

The bold in these sentences is absolute phrase. There are many many other examples in official sources.
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish
GMAT - 99th Pecentile, MBA-ISB, Faculty @ http://www.EducationAisle.com

Our book Sentence Correction Nirvana available at

Amazon: Sentence Correction Nirvana
Flipkart: Sentence Correction Nirvana

Image

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 12

Re: OG Q83 [#permalink] New post 26 Jul 2013, 03:21
EducationAisle wrote:
ajmalshams wrote:
my doubt is

"that" starts another subordinate clause right ??

so how can the subject and verb for "that" clause be the subject and verb for the clause starting with "a phenomenon"


Actually clause starting with "a phenomenon" is not a clause at all!! It's a phrase. Let's take an example:

ajmalshams is studying for GMAT, a competitive exam.
- Hopefully it is easy for you to see that "a competitive exam" is a phrase (and not a clause).

Now lets look at the following sentence:

ajmalshams is studying for GMAT, a competitive exam that is tough to crack .
- Again, the above sentence, at the "core" is same as the previous one; just that the subordinate clause that is tough to crack is modifying a competitive exam. So, a competitive exam that is tough to crack still acts as a phrase.

Also, when Zarrolou says "appositive phrase", perhaps (s)he means "absolute phrase". In SC, it is very essential that test takers get very comfortable with "absolute phrases". Since the structure of "absolute phrase" is so "non-intuitive", GMAT loves to test on that. Few examples from OG:

#102, OG-13:
Yellow jackets number among the 900 or so species of the world's social wasps, wasps that live in a highly cooperative and organized society consisting almost entirely of females—the queen and her sterile female workers.

#38, OG-12:
In 1850, Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women and for changes in the married women’s property laws.

The bold in these sentences is absolute phrase. There are many many other examples in official sources.



THANKS GUYS!!...I expected a clause after the comma for some reason....:)...that was the mistake
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 26 Feb 2013
Posts: 184
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 25

Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink] New post 11 Nov 2013, 03:35
Yes no answers welcome here:

Can it ever be the case that we have "no just because...." NOT followed by a " but also" ?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 193
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GPA: 3.82
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 72

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink] New post 11 Apr 2014, 06:21
tcsing wrote:
Hi, this question has been posted before, but regarding a different point of grammar, hence starting a new thread.

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

(A) a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing

(B) a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing

(C) a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written

(D) which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing

(E) which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written

The correct answer is B. However, does the verb tense make sense? The phenomenon was in 2000, but it is explained by 2 factors that are happening now? (doctors are writing... drugs are becoming...)

Anyone have any thoughts? Thanks!


Hi

I have doubt on this
Will D) be correct if construction was like
which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but also doctors are writing

Which clause can modify only preceeding noun?
So this makes this formation wrong. please help me out .


Thanks in Advance,
Swami
Intern
Intern
avatar
Status: Preparing for GMAT
Joined: 10 Dec 2013
Posts: 25
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Leadership
GMAT 1: 530 Q46 V18
WE: Other (Entertainment and Sports)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 61

Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink] New post 14 Aug 2014, 06:29
There was a lot of discussion, but can someone please explain how the tense "are becoming" and "are writing" in B is correct even when the sentence starts with a time reference - "In 2000,". Seems pretty confusing to me. I did read the explanation for it in OG-13(SC-86), but it talks only about the incorrect placement of also in C and E. And if the word "also" were to be placed correctly, does that make option C correct?
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Nov 2010
Posts: 20
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 49

GMAT ToolKit User
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink] New post 14 Aug 2014, 22:16
tcsing wrote:
Hi, this question has been posted before, but regarding a different point of grammar, hence starting a new thread.

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

(A) a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing

(B) a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing

(C) a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written

(D) which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing

(E) which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written

The correct answer is B. However, does the verb tense make sense? The phenomenon was in 2000, but it is explained by 2 factors that are happening now? (doctors are writing... drugs are becoming...)

Anyone have any thoughts? Thanks!


My take....
A phenomenon occurred in the past. It is explained not only by x, but also by y.

Ibola virus was spreading in the nineteenth century, not only because of increasing human contact, but also because of the ever increasing list of symptoms
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for   [#permalink] 14 Aug 2014, 22:16
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the ajmalshams 0 25 Jul 2013, 11:16
3 Experts publish their posts in the topic In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the perfectstranger 4 22 Jul 2012, 05:06
2 In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the gregspirited 7 07 Dec 2007, 03:49
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the singh_amit19 11 29 Sep 2007, 12:17
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the cookie00 3 20 Aug 2006, 16:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.