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

 It is currently 24 Sep 2016, 19:25

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 24
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [4] , given: 37

New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Oct 2010, 15:59
4
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

74% (01:59) correct 26% (01:12) wrong based on 460 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish big fires.

(A) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish
(B) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, seven dollars are saved that would have been spent on extinguishing
(C) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish
(D) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, that it saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish
(E) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management
personnel, that seven dollars are saved that would not have been spent on extinguishing

Official Guide 12 Question

 Question: 36 Page: 40 Difficulty: 600

Find All Official Guide Questions

Video Explanations:
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by wininblue on 05 Oct 2010, 16:26, edited 1 time in total.
Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1713
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 91

Kudos [?]: 821 [0], given: 109

Re: OG-12 Diagnostic - Tough SC - Q36 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Oct 2010, 16:02
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1713
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 91

Kudos [?]: 821 [1] , given: 109

Re: OG-12 Diagnostic - Tough SC - Q36 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Oct 2010, 16:15
1
KUDOS
wininblue wrote:
I have a very specific question - what is the role of this clause - "that would not have been spent on extinguishing" in :
personnel, that seven dollars are saved "that would not have been spent on extinguishing"

What is this relative clause modifying?

B

I didn't understand very well your question , but: In B, "that would have been spent on extinguishing" is modifying " seven dollars". The relative clause is providing additional information about that money.

I think I deserve kudos
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Intern
Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 24
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 37

Re: OG-12 Diagnostic - Tough SC - Q36 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Oct 2010, 16:39
Apologies for not underlinging the sent. earlier.

Let me make my q little more clear:
in the clause: seven dollars are saved "that would not have been spent on extinguishing"
this clause : "that would not have been spent on extinguishing" doesnt act as a relative pronoun because it is touching "saved" which is a verb, and not a noun.

It seems to be a noun Direct Noun Object
Seven dollars are saved - these seven dollors would have been spent on extinguishing - "that" replaces "these seven dollars"
Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1713
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 91

Kudos [?]: 821 [0], given: 109

Re: OG-12 Diagnostic - Tough SC - Q36 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Oct 2010, 16:51
wininblue wrote:
Apologies for not underlinging the sent. earlier.

Let me make my q little more clear:
in the clause: seven dollars are saved "that would not have been spent on extinguishing"
this clause : "that would not have been spent on extinguishing" doesnt act as a relative pronoun because it is touching "saved" which is a verb, and not a noun.

It seems to be a noun Direct Noun Object
Seven dollars are saved - these seven dollors would have been spent on extinguishing - "that" replaces "these seven dollars"

Yes, I agree with you. That part is not clear.
However, I read that the only case in which the noun must be behind touching the clause is when you use "which". For example: Hey, listen this new song of Metallica, WHICH is the best heavy metal band in the world.
As you can see, the noun and "which" are together. Please notice that there is a comma (it's very important!).
I'm not 100% sure of what I'm telling you (my native language is not English), but it is working for me
Finally, notice that you can solve this question without worrying about that part of the sentence.

Hope it helps
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: http://gmatclub.com/forum/my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Manager
Status: Mission GMAT
Joined: 20 Apr 2011
Posts: 96
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 39

Re: OG-12 Diagnostic - Tough SC - Q36 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2011, 05:17
the clause modifies seven dollars
_________________

Hope this post helps!
Your kudos will let me know.

Manager
Status: Mission GMAT
Joined: 20 Apr 2011
Posts: 96
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 58 [1] , given: 39

Re: OG-12 Diagnostic - Tough SC - Q36 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2011, 05:24
1
KUDOS
New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show that for every dollar spent on controlled small scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish big fires.
(A) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish
(B) that for every dollar spent on controlled small scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, seven dollars are saved that would have been spent on extinguishing
(C) that for every dollar spent on controlled small scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish
(D) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire management
personnel, that it saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish
(E) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire management

The first error to notice in the sentence is parallelism. The for every dollar spent... seven dollars are saved is parallel.
Also, the pronoun 'it' has missing anrecedent. New data from United States.. is the subject of the sentence. However, the data cannot be an antecedent as it does not make sense to say that the new data saves seven dollars.
Also, United States forest service ecologists cannot be an antecedent either. United states forest service is the noun that pronoun represents here. But the antecedent must be present as a noun. Here the United states forest service acts as an adjective. Ecologists is the noun. Hence, the sentence has an illogical antecedent and it is a pronoun error. Note that ambiguous pronouns are NOT ALWAYS an error, in that had United States Forst service been present as a noun in this sentence 'it' would have had an ambiguous antecedent. However, this might have been acceptable as seen again and again and again in sentence correction.

The major pronoun traps are - possesives, nouns present as adjectices (as both can't act as antecedents), missing or illogical antecedents and antecedent and pronoun not agreeing in number. Ambiguos pronoun is not a definite issue unless we hava a better choice!
_________________

Hope this post helps!
Your kudos will let me know.

Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2011
Posts: 93
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 1

Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Dec 2011, 00:06
B because seven dollar is being modified.
Intern
Joined: 15 Oct 2012
Posts: 6
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 1

Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2012, 00:57
Quote:
New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish big fires.

(A) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish
(B) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, seven dollars are saved that would have been spent on extinguishing
(C) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish
(D) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, that it saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish
(E) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management
personnel, that seven dollars are saved that would not have been spent on extinguishing

For option B, i have a question:
(B) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, seven dollars are saved that would have been spent on extinguishing

why not using this: 'seven dollars that would have been spent on extinguishing are saved' ?

'seven dollars are saved that would have been spent on extinguishing' is confusing,...never seen before. In this structure, 'That' relative clause (that would have been spent on extinguishing) is preceed by an independent clause (seven dollars are saved) ? Can someone explain ?
Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 3599
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Followers: 618

Kudos [?]: 4860 [1] , given: 321

Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2012, 07:15
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Let’s decode the structural jumble of the sentence by patiently parsing it.

New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish big fires.

New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show ---- This is the main clause

That –the subordinate conjunction introducing the 1st sub-ordinate clause.

for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel; this in fact
is the subject of sub- clause with its essential modifiers starting with the past participle -----spent ---

‘It’ saves seven dollars; saves is in fact the verb of the subordinate clause. But even before this verb can take its right royal role, there is an intervening pronoun ‘it’, which is redundant and corrupts the structure of the entire sentence.

that would not be spent on having to extinguish big fires. This is another sub- clause modifying the object ' the seven dollars'. In fact, the object ‘seven dollars’ turns as the subject of this modifying clause.

(A) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish ------- We can simply reject A on grounds of the intruding and redundant pronoun ‘it’. Meaning of the modifier clause is not clear as to how one can save something that he might have be spending at all. .

(B) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, seven dollars are saved that would have been spent on extinguishing --- This choice is fitting into the grove smugly. The subject matches its verb in the subordinate clause with perfect //ism and the meaning of the modifying clause is simple and straight. The best choice

(C) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish – that for every dollar saves seven dollars does not make much meaning. ---- For every dollar spent --- should be followed by a passive voice structure such as ---seven dollars are saved. ---

(D) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, that it saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish --- a reported fact such as in this case, should be necessarily introduced by a connector such as ‘that’ ; secondly it is weird to think that you save something you would be spending.

(E) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, that seven dollars are saved that would not have been spent on extinguishing – same problems as in D
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Manager
Affiliations: IIBA
Joined: 04 Sep 2010
Posts: 60
Location: India
Schools: HBS, Stanford, Stern, Insead, ISB, Wharton, Columbia
WE 1: Information Technology (Banking and Financial Services)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jan 2013, 17:41
daagh wrote:
(D) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, that it saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish --- a reported fact such as in this case, should be necessarily introduced by a connector such as ‘that’ ; secondly it is weird to think that you save something you would be spending.

Daagh,

You have provided a good explanation. Can you please clarify what did you mean by - it is weird to think that you save something you would be spending .I couln not understand this part clearly.
_________________

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

VP
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1336
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 99 [0], given: 771

Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jan 2013, 21:31
1.

pronoun ambiguity can be tolerant in the parallel structure. for example

the data show many opportunities because they are studied carefully

"they" can refer to "data" because they are parallel. this case can be tolerent

in A, "it" ambiguity is not acceptable.

2

the phrase " that would not be spent" is not logic. This is serious porblem in A.

is my thinking correct?
Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2011
Posts: 84
Location: United States
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 13

Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2013, 16:32
wininblue wrote:
New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish big fires.

(A) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish
(B) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, seven dollars are saved that would have been spent on extinguishing
(C) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish
(D) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, that it saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish
(E) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management
personnel, that seven dollars are saved that would not have been spent on extinguishing

Official Guide 12 Question

 Question: 36 Page: 40 Difficulty: 600

Find All Official Guide Questions

Video Explanations:

Guys I need some clarity with respect to OG explanation to this question.

For option D, the explanation says- That introduces a subordinate rather than main clause, making a sentence fragment. Can someone please explain this. I know we must not use ",that".
Manager
Joined: 21 Jun 2011
Posts: 84
Location: United States
Concentration: Accounting, Finance
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 13

Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2013, 03:28
I have another question on the pronoun it. At first I felt the pronoun "it" is being used as a placeholder it. Is there a way to identify whether a pronoun it is being used as a placeholder or not. I know that it is used to postpone infinitive and that as subject and object.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 346
Schools: LBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Followers: 184

Kudos [?]: 341 [0], given: 4

Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2013, 03:39

Guys I need some clarity with respect to OG explanation to this question.

For option D, the explanation says- That introduces a subordinate rather than main clause, making a sentence fragment. Can someone please explain this. I know we must not use ",that".

HI David,

I agree, the explanation is a little confusing.

What is basically means is that the word 'that' introduces a part of the sentence that explains or clarifies the main part of the sentence (the word 'because' also tends to introduce a subordinate phrase).

In this instance this is incorrect, the final part of the sentence is still part of the main sentence. So you take away the 'that' and it stays as part of the main sentence...

Does that help?

James
_________________

Former GMAT Pill student, now on staff. Used GMATPILL OG 12 and nothing else: 770 (48,48) & 6.0

... and more

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 3599
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Followers: 618

Kudos [?]: 4860 [0], given: 321

Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Apr 2013, 09:41
@soaringalone

Quote:
Daagh,

You have provided a good explanation. Can you please clarify what did you mean by - it is weird to think that you save something you would be spending .I could not understand this part clearly.

Soaringalone: Good catch; I am sorry for the unintended typo; it should be – it is weird to think that you save something you would not be spending – I have missed the all important not – Sorry for the belatedness( though better late than never) and thanks for correcting
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Director
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 841
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Followers: 54

Kudos [?]: 1145 [0], given: 197

Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2013, 23:22
wininblue wrote:
New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish big fires.

(A) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish
(B) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, seven dollars are saved that would have been spent on extinguishing
(C) that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish
(D) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, that it saves seven dollars on not having to extinguish
(E) for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management
personnel, that seven dollars are saved that would not have been spent on extinguishing

Official Guide 12 Question

 Question: 36 Page: 40 Difficulty: 600

Find All Official Guide Questions

Video Explanations:

==
Hi ,
i have a doubt regarding the sub-verb agreement in the non underlined portion.
New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show
as per my thinking SUBJECT :NEW DATA(SINGULAR)..............VERB: SHOW(PLURAL)===>How is this working a plural verb with a singular subject?
please correct where i am wrong?

thanks
_________________

When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...

learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 9757
Followers: 837

Kudos [?]: 173 [0], given: 0

Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Oct 2014, 10:09
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Manager
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 179
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V38
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 46

New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jan 2016, 13:40
hi experts,
I would appreciate your input on this. I got the correct answer but I was really put off by the parallel here (in red):
I was hoping to cancel this out and I was really supprised to see the same parallel repeated in all choices.

How can OG just parellel a complex gerund with two simple gerunds?
Aren't we supposed to have :
small-scale burning, forest thinning, and fire-management personel training ?
Or : the burning of small-scale, the thinning of forest and the training of fire-management personnel ?

New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show that for every dollar spent on controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel, it saves seven dollars that would not be spent on having to extinguish big fires.
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 May 2015
Posts: 259
Location: South Africa
GPA: 3.49
WE: Web Development (Insurance)
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 22

Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2016, 00:14
This question is really easy if you spot the parallelism error.

For every dollar spent..... Seven dollars are saved.
_________________

Kudos if I helped

Re: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show   [#permalink] 18 Feb 2016, 00:14

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 23 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
2 Discouraged by new data that show increases in toxic emissions from do 3 15 Sep 2016, 18:23
2 Discouraged by new data that show increases in toxic emissions from do 2 23 Feb 2016, 04:20
13 According to United States census data, while there was 14 06 Jul 2009, 22:49
A recent United States Census Bureau report shows that there 5 19 May 2008, 00:29
A recent United States Census Bureau report shows that there 2 13 Feb 2008, 22:47
Display posts from previous: Sort by