New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show

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



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

"That" itself is the subject and "would be spent" is the verb (passive voice). For any relative clause, the relative pronoun itself that starts the clause ("which", "who", "that" etc.) is the subject.

Hi vaidhai, perhaps what's confusing you is the role that that is playing in this sentence. For example:

Jack said that he would work hard.

Here, Jack and he serve as subjects for their respective clauses, with that being a conjunction.

However, in the sentence under consideration, that is not used as a conjunction, but as a relative pronoun. An example:

Peter bought a car that is very expensive.

Here that is used as a relative pronoun, and in this case, is the subject for the verb is.

By the way, apart from the above two usages, that can also be used as a demonstrative pronoun. A good understanding of the various usages of that is important for SC.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses the various 'avatars' of 'that' , its application and examples in significant detail. If someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.

Hello - Please pardon my lack of understanding here, I am unable to understand the explanation Dagh gave for option D and E. Specifically for the usage of "that".

I even tried to read the official explanation, which says - "That introduces a subordinate rather than main clause, making a sentence fragment; it has no referent; not having to extinguish is wordy and awkward." For D & "Introductory that makes a sentence fragment; that would not have been spent on extinguishing is awkward and illogical." For E, but I am not clear with this explanation as well.

Appreciate if you can throw some light on this.

Yeah... I'm not sure that I have any idea what, exactly, they're trying to say on those official explanations. They aren't exactly the greatest.

There's a good reason why (D) and (E) are wrong, but it's not particularly mechanical, and it's definitely not easy to explain. I'll give it a shot, though.

Consider these two sentences:

1) For every $100 Charles earns as a GMAT tutor, he spends $99 on burritos and bhindi masala.
2) For every $100 Charles earns as a GMAT tutor, that he spends $99 on burritos and bhindi masala.

There's absolutely no good reason to include the word "that" in the second sentence, right? It just creates a mess. Maybe we could come up with some jargon-filled explanation for why #2 is wrong, but I can't really understand what "that" is trying to do in #2. (If you're not clear about the potential uses of "that" on the GMAT, you might consider taking a look at this article.)

We could make the sentence a little bit more complicated, but it wouldn't change anything we just said about the use of "that" in sentence #2:

3) New data shows that for every $100 Charles earns as a GMAT tutor, he spends $99 on burritos and bhindi masala.
4) New data shows that for every $100 Charles earns as a GMAT tutor, that he spends $99 on burritos and bhindi masala.

We might be tempted to hallucinate some parallelism in #4, but there's no real justification for it, since there's no parallelism trigger ("and" or "or" would be the most obvious examples). The first "that" just subordinates a clause, and tells us what the data shows. And the data is telling us that entire phrase: "for every $100 Charles earns as a GMAT tutor, he spends $99 on burritos and bhindi masala." Why would we try to chop up that phrase with a 2nd "that", as in sentence #4?

That's the heart of the problem with (D) and (E) in the Forest Service question. The original question is just wordier than my little example.

Does that help at all?

Hi.

I don't know if anyone is still on this post but if you are, can you explain to me the parallelism in the question. It says, "controlled small -scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel." "the training of fire-management personnel," seems incorrect to me because it is the only part of the list that begins with "the."

Is the sentence still parallel adding words to it at the beginning or does it only matter that all these words have a verb with "-ing." In other sentences, I have the feeling that most words are parallel from the beginning.

Advice would be much appreciated. Thanks.

Don't worry: GMAT Club posts live forever.

Your question about parallelism is a darned good one, and the answer is actually a little bit complicated. I think there are two things that are key here: first, parallelism isn't a purely rigid, mechanical thing. You need sentences to be parallel ENOUGH to convey the intended meaning accurately, but there's more wiggle-room than we like to think sometimes.

And the second thing is that the same structure appears in all five answer choices, so the GMAT is openly begging you not to worry about it in this particular case.

But back to the first thing. Consider these two sentences:

• I ate eggs and ham last week. -- This is the most boring parallelism I could think of: "I ate (noun) and (noun)..." Fine, right?
• I ate eggs and green ham last week. -- If you're too mechanical with the parallelism, you might think that this is wrong: "I ate (noun) and (adjective noun)..." But the essence is still fine: I ate two foods. Those foods are parallel. So it's not a problem.

The same general concept applies to the OG question above. In the phrase "controlled small-scale burning, forest thinning, and the training of fire-management personnel", we still have three gerunds (nouns ending in "-ing") as the heart of the parallel list. Personally, I agree with you: this would probably be nicer if it said "training fire-management personnel", but I don't think it's a horrible thing to stick the article in there in this case. The essence of the list is still intact -- and we don't have any other options, anyway.

But you're smart to notice this sort of thing: sometimes, the GMAT does seem to prefer lists that have articles attached to all three nouns if there's a compelling reason to include them. Here's an example that you might find interesting: https://gmatclub.com/forum/building-on- ... 30798.html.

I hope this helps, and welcome to GMAT Club!

Most of the sentence is underlined. Look for Big 4 issues: Structure, Meaning, Modifiers, or Parallelism.

Issues

(1) Idiom: for every X, Y
Pronoun: it
The original sentence introduces a two-part idiom: for every dollar spent on something, it saves seven dollars on other things.
As with any two-part idiom, the X and Y portions need to be parallel. Further, to which noun does it refer?

There is no referent for the pronoun it. Eliminate answers (A) and (D).

Next, every dollar and it are not parallel; the original sentence lacks parallelism in the X and Y portions of the idiom. Check
the remaining answers:

(A) for every dollar spent, it saves seven dollars
(B) for every dollar spent, seven dollars are saved
(C) for every dollar spent, saves seven dollars
(D) for every dollar spent, that it saves seven dollars
(E) for every dollar spent, that seven dollars are saved

Answer (B) offers a parallel structure: every dollar matches seven dollars and spent matches saved. Eliminate answers (A). (C), (D), and (E) for lack of parallelism.

(2) Verb / Meaning: would not


The original sentence says that the action saves seven dollars that would not be spent. This meaning is illogical; the money is
saved now, so it's already clear that it won't be spent either hypothetically or in the future.
The intended meaning is that the money saved would otherwise have been spent in the past. Eliminate answer (A) for bad verb
tense.
Answer (E) reverses the meaning: seven dollars are saved that would not have been spent. This is illogical because that
money actually would have been spent if it had not been saved. Eliminate answer (E) for illogical meaning.

(3) Structure

The first three answers begin with the word that; the other two move the word that to later in the sentence.

Answers (A) and (B) correctly use the complex sentence structure Subject–Verb-That-Subject–Verb. This structure needs to
contain a clause both before and after the word that:
She believed that despite his gruff demeanor, he was friendly.
Answer (C) omits a subject for the second clause: New data show that (for every dollar spent) saves seven dollars. Eliminate
answer (C).

Answers (D) and (E) move the word that: new data show (for every dollar spent), that. In the Subject–Verb-That-Subject–
Verb structure, it's strongly preferable to place the word that as close as possible to the first verb (ideally immediately after).
An alternate placement, particularly after a comma, introduces ambiguity: She believed despite his gruff demeanor, that he was
friendly. Is the word that part of the sentence core, or it is introducing a separate modifier? Eliminate answers (D) and (E).

The Correct Answer
Correct answer (B) removes the faulty pronoun it and uses the parallel structure for every dollar spent, seven dollars are
saved.

pls, comment on would not/would have been. which one is correct. thank you very much.

"Saves seven dollars that would have been spent" is the better version.

That version makes sense, because it conveys that the seven dollars saved are the seven dollar that would have been spent had the measures not been taken.

In contrast, "seven dollars are saved that would not have been spent," from (E), does not make sense. If the dollars would not have been spent, then how would they be saved? They are already saved.

"It saves seven dollars that would not be spent," in (A) is somewhat more logical than "seven dollars are saved that would not have been spent," because, OK, sure, the dollars having been saved, they would not be spent, but "saves seven dollars" and "dollars that would not be spent" are redunant. Obviously, if the dollars are saved, they "would not be spent."

Also, ANY dollars saved would not be spent on extinguishing fires. So, saying that "it saves seven dollars that would not be spent" on extinguishing fires actually provides no information regarding which dollars the sentence is about. Any dollar that anyone has in a savings account "would not be spent" on extiguishing fires. Are those the dollars the sentence is about? No. So which dollars are they? They are the "dollars ... that would have been spent" on extinguishing fires. So, "dollars ... that would have been spent" clearly indicates which dollars the sentence is about, while "dollars that would not be spent" could be almost any dollars in existence.

GMATNinja sayantanc2k egmat MartyTargetTestPrep
Hi experts,

I have a doubt, the correct answer option B looks like a run a sentence because the second clause starting with "seven dollars are saved" is not separated with a conjunction from the first clause.

Thank you in advance.
Posted from my mobile device

Hello Abhijit199311,
Thank you for the query.

Let's take a look at the correct answer choice:

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, seven dollars are saved that would have been spent on extinguishing big fires.

Cl. 1: New data from United States Forest Service ecologists show = Independent Clause.

Cl. 2: that (connector) for every dollar spent on

controlled small-scale burning,
forest thinning, and
the training of fire-management personnel,

(modifier)

Cont. of Cl. 2: seven dollars are saved = Dependent Clause because this clause starts with the connector that. (You probably missed it because of the long modifier between the connector and the SV pair in Cl. 2.)

Cl. 3: that would have been spent on extinguishing big fires. = Dependent Clause.

(Subjects in blue; Verbs in green)


Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Hi GMATNinja, KarishmaB, @veritasprephailey, AjiteshArun

I have the same doubt regarding option B. Request the experts to please clarify.

Dear Experts, GMATNinja AndrewN

If I don't know the idiom "For every X,Y..", is there other clue to eliminate A ?

Also, I don't understand structure in (B) : seven dollars are saved that would have been spent on extinguishing.. why is "that" placed there? what is the role of "that"?
Shouldn't it be "seven dollars that would have been spent on extinguishing big fires are saved" ? Is it acceptable to rearrange the structure? I know that there is actually no touch-rule, but generally "that" cannot jump over a "verb".

Actually, I eliminated (B) because of the structure.

Three other ways to eliminate A:

• The pronoun it ("it saves seven dollars...") doesn't have a valid noun to stand for.
(The answer to "WHAT saves seven dollars?" is "practicing controlled small-scale burning and forest thinning, and training fire-management personnel". These things are not expressed in noun form—and even if you tried to re-write them that way, you certainly wouldn't get a singular noun!)

• The combination of "saves" and "would NOT be spent" is nonsense.
(Think about what it means to save money: To "save money" is to avoid spending money that you otherwise WOULD have spent. You can't "save" money or resources that you weren't possibly going to spend/use in the first place!)

• "Spent on having to extinguish fires" is also nonsense.
(The money is spent on extinguishing fires! "Having to..." doesn't refer to the actual, physical act of firefighting, but instead to the Forest Service's obligation / duty to put out fires. There's no such thing as spending money on an obligation or job description.)

Yes.

Many different kinds of modifiers follow a noun. Verbs and verb phrases also follow a noun (specifically, the noun that's the subject of the verb).
When a noun is followed by two or more such groups of words, the writer has to choose the order in which to write them. That decision is guided by an assortment of preferences and style rules—for which you're definitely not responsible on the GMAT (which does not test stylistics in any capacity)—and sometimes is purely arbitrary.

When a noun is followed by two word groups of starkly differing lengths (= one much longer than the other), a common convention is to choose the order that puts the longer word group LAST.

Both of the following sentences are ok:
You are everything to me.
You are to me what rainfall is to thirsty plants in the desert. (This sentence follows the convention described above.)

If you don't understand the appeal of doing this, just think about what the sentence would look like with these phrases in the opposite order: "You are what rainfall is to thirsty plants in the desert to me." That's basically unreadable.


In the problem at hand, "are saved" works like "to me" above, in terms of its placement after the noun ("seven dollars").


What's important to realize here is that you do NOT need to DECIDE WHEN to invert the 'usual' order[ of two groups of words that follow the same noun—because you aren't asked to WRITE these sentences.
You just need to realize that the order CAN be inverted, so that you can properly recognize either of the two resulting formats as potentially correct.