Soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending

Hey All,

I was asked to take this on by PM. Even though there's tons of great discussion here, I figured I should still weigh in. I don't know if the original poster (Nusma!) was trying to be tricky or something, but he had both answers correct. Here's why.


Soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending in the presidential campaign of 1992, a greater proportion than it was in any previous election.

A. a greater proportion than it was
PROBLEM: The "it" here has no intelligent antecedent. It can't be "half the spending", because that wouldn't make logical sense (try plugging it in for the "it" and you'll see why not). But "costs" are plural.

B. a greater proportion than
ANSWER

C. a greater proportion than they have been
PROBLEM: The antecedent of "they" must be "costs", but that doesn't make sense either. It wasn't the costs that were a greater proportion, but the "half the spending". This is a comparison issue. We want to compare a proportion to a proportion. Also the present perfect implies continuation into the present, but this ends at 1992.

D. which is greater than was so
PROBLEM: "which" is modifying "half the spending", but we need the mention of proportion, because that's the issue here. Also the "so" doesn't make sense.

E. which is greater than it has been
PROBLEM: Again, we need mention to be made of "proportion". Also the use of the present perfect implies continuation into the present, but this ends at 1992.

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended meaning of this sentence is that soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending in the presidential campaign of 1992, and this was a greater proportion spent on television costs than in any previous election.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Modifiers + Pronouns + Tenses

• "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma.
• The simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past.
The present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present.

A: Trap. This answer choice suffers from a pronoun error, as the pronoun "it" lacks a clear and logical referent.

B: Correct. This answer choice avoids the pronoun error seen in Options A, C, and E, as it uses no pronouns. Further, Option B correctly modifies "half the spending in the presidential campaign of 1992" with "a greater proportion than", conveying the intended meaning - that soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending in the presidential campaign of 1992, and this was a greater proportion spent on television costs than in any previous election. Additionally, Option B avoids the tense error seen in Options C and E, as it uses the prepositional phrase "than in any previous election" rather than an active verb phrase.

C: This answer choice suffers from a pronoun error, as the pronoun "they" lacks a clear and logical referent. Further, Option C incorrectly uses the present perfect tense verb "have been" to refer to an event that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past, and the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present.

D: This answer choice incorrectly modifies "half the spending in the presidential campaign of 1992" with "which is greater than was so"; the construction of the latter phrase leads to an incoherent meaning; the intended meaning is that soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending in the presidential campaign of 1992, and this was a greater proportion spent on television costs than in any previous election; remember, "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma.

E: This answer choice suffers from a pronoun error, as the pronoun "it" lacks a clear and logical referent. Further, Option E incorrectly modifies "half the spending in the presidential campaign of 1992" with "which is greater than it has been", illogically implying that half the spending in the presidential campaign of 1992 is greater than the same amount of money was in any previous election; the intended meaning is that soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending in the presidential campaign of 1992, and this was a greater proportion spent on television costs than in any previous election; remember, "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma. Additionally, Option E incorrectly uses the present perfect tense verb "has been" to refer to an event that concluded in the past; please remember, the simple past tense is used to refer to events that concluded in the past, and the present perfect tense (marked by the use of the helping verb “has/have”) is used to describe events that concluded in the past but continue to affect the present.

Hence, B is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Simple Tenses" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



To understand the concept of "Present Perfect Tense" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~2 minutes):



To understand the concept of "Which/Who/Whose/Where" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~1 minute):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

The question tests the concept of Modifiers and Comparisons. The underlined portion is part of a modifier that describes the soaring costs mentioned in the first part of the sentence and compares the proportion of the amount spent on television for various elections.

The sentence conveys the meaning that the soaring television costs were more than half of the amount spent on the presidential campaign of 1992 and this proportion of the amount was higher than the proportion of the amount spent in any previous election.

Options D and E can be ruled out easily as they are in the form of a clause beginning with a relative pronoun. A relative pronoun refers to the word immediately before it, which in this case, is the year 1992. In the case of a noun phrase before the relative pronoun, the relative pronoun can refer to the first noun, which in this case would be “the presidential campaign’. Neither reference makes sense in this sentence. So, Options D and E can be ruled out.

Options A and C have pronouns in them. In Option A, the pronoun ‘it’ could be taken as referring to ‘proportion’, conveying the meaning that the proportion was greater than the proportion was in any other election. This makes the pronoun redundant because the proportion is already mentioned in the first part of the sentence in this manner - “Soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending”. Or it could be taken as referring to ‘soaring television costs’, making it an incorrect pronoun reference, since ‘it’ is singular. So, Option A can be eliminated.

In Option C, the plural pronoun ‘they’ has been used. This gives rise to a pronoun reference error. The plural pronoun cannot refer to ‘proportion’. So, Option C can also be eliminated.

Option B is the only one that completes the comparison effectively.
Therefore, B is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.

What does "it" refer to in answer A? I think that "it" refers to proportion, right? If so, does that necessarily make answer A wrong? Please explain why B and not A. thanks.

Soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending in the presidential campaign of 1992, a greater proportion than it was in any previous election.

(a) a greater proportion than it was - dangling modifier, but right time
(b) a greater proportion than - right one
(c) a greater proportion than they have been - wrong time, dangling modifier
(d) which is greater than was so - redundant
(e) which is greater than it has been dangling modifier, wrong time

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangling_modifier for additional info

Option (A) wrongly introduces another clause (subject + verb) while option (B) just correctly modifies 'television costs' (subordinate phrase).

In addition, remember the standard pattern for comparisons: X is less than Y, NOT X is less than it is Y.

Just try to 'throw away' all words between 'costs' and 'a greater proportion'.

Hi tommy can you please elaborate on this ?
D. which is greater than was so
PROBLEM: "which" is modifying "half the spending", but we need the mention of proportion, because that's the issue here. Also the "so" doesn't make sense.



"we need the mention of proportion

Hey Zatarra,

"Which" is a relative pronoun, which (with rare exceptions) modifies whatever comes directly before it. But in this sentence, that would be "half the spending...". But it's not the spending itself that was greater, but the PROPORTION of total spending that was greater.

As for the other issue, we can't use so this way.

I can say: "Just as it was green yesterday, so is it green today." But I can't say "I have twelve dollars, more than was so last year."

So means "in the same way". See how it works in my first example, but not my second? Try plugging in "in the same way" in answer choice D. Doesn't make any sense, right?

Hope that helps!

-t

Hi Metallicafan,
In the above sentence the problem with A is not just the pronoun reference. First dealing with the reasons why B is right :
The Structure of the sentence:
Soaring Television costs accounted for more than half the spending [...], a greater proportion than [...].
'A Greater proportion' is modifying the Noun Clause beginning with the Present Participle.

The structure 'X greater than Y' when the comparison is between 2 different things.
To make a comparison between one instance of X with all the remaining instances of X... the structure is: 'X greater than in any other instances of X'

In the given sentence the comparison is not between 2 different things, hence the former structure is incorrect and we choose the latter structure. Hence B is correct.

Now going back to the Pronoun Reference issue:
A - Incorrect Pronoun reference because the Pronoun 'It' has the antecedent
'Greater Proportion' ... replace the pronoun with the antecedent and you will have a nonsensical sentence. Hence for the above 2 reasons A is incorrect.

A. a greater proportion than it was
'It' doesn't have a clear referent.
B. a greater proportion than
Concise.
C. a greater proportion than they have been
'have been' is wrong tense. 'had been' or 'were' would have been correct.
D. which is greater than was so
'which' modifies presidential campaign and 'was so' is redundant.
E. which is greater than it has been
'which' modifies presidential campaign and 'has been' is wrong tense.

Even if there was another answer choice, written 'a greater proportion than they had been,' I would have still chosen B as the sentence does not need any further specification on what's being compared.

This is another example from an OG question.

Although Napoleon’s army entered Russia with far more supplies than in previous campaigns, it had provisions for only twenty-four days.

Suchoudh, since you eliminated D and E, I'm guessing you know the "which" modifier/touch rule, which knocks out those two choices. ("Which" would refer back to 1992--that doesn't make sense!)

The phrase "greater...than" lets us know that we're comparing two things--remember that compared items must be logically comparable and structurally similar.

A, B, and C look very similar, except for their tail ends. A and C both contain prepositions.

(A) contains "it"-- what could be the antecedent for that pronoun? We have two singular options-- "campaign" and "spending." That's a problem-- ambiguity! Even if you're super versed in the GMAT and know that a certain degree of pronoun ambiguity can sometimes be tolerated (although typically not in the situation seen here), there is ANOTHER reason for eliminating (A): we are comparing a phrase and a clause--"the spending" versus "the spending was." ELIMINATE

In (B), "than" would be immediately followed by "in any previous election"...so the things we are comparing are "the spending IN" the 1992 campaign versus IN any previous election. This is ok.

In (C), we have the plural pronoun "they," which could only refer back to "costs"--- but we want to refer back to some form of "spending" (because we have "more than half the spending..." as the first chunk of that comparison). We also have the same phrase/clause issue that exists in (A)--ELIMINATE

That leaves B.

Of course, Parker, et al have brought out beautifully the fine points of the issue. Kudos to Parker and scheol79. I thought I would weigh in a different aspect of approaching the issue.

The subject is the plural ‘costs’ and hence the use of any pronoun such as ‘it’ or a singular verb as ‘is’, or ‘has been’ is wrong. As such one can dump A,D and E; Between B and C,C is wrong because it uses a wrong tense of present perfect for a bygone thing. In fact, a past perfect should have been used in this case, because the reference is for proportion prior to 1992 campaign.

B is left.

Hello Shraddha,

C. a greater proportion than they have been: Incorrect.
1.Plural “they” can only refer to “soaring television costs”. This entity cannot be the logical antecedent of “they”. Hence, we have pronoun error.
2. Use of present perfect tense “have been” is incorrect. The complete verb here should be “they have been accounting for”. Notice that “accounting” cannot be made understood because this word does not appear anywhere else in this sentence. Also, previous elections are over. Nothing can be accounting for them in the present.

why is “soaring television costs” - verb-ing modifier noun not "Singular" in this case???

Hi kuttingchai,

"Soaring television costs" is a noun phrase. Yes, "soaring" is a verb-ing modifier that appears right before "television costs", a noun entity. Hence, it modifies this noun entity. So "soaring" is an adjective in this sentence. "costs" is the noun here that is a plural entity, and hence the subject "soaring television costs" is a plural subject.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

DenisSh/Shraddha, I really need some help on this.
To make sentence structure simple, I am replacing some of the terms in following fashion.
Z= Soaring television costs
more than half the spending in the presidential campaign of 1992 = 50%

Z accounted for 50%, a greater proportion than in any previous election.

I am confused with the structure of highlighted portion of the sentence. It looks like a phrase(not sure if it is an absolute phrase). Shouldn't the highlighted portion should have something to compare with?
I mean I would have been happy with sentence. Z accounted for 50%, a greater proportion than in any previous election.
But, extra appendage of stroked out part is making me nuts as we dont have any thing to compare with.
To be frank, shouldn't we expect another noun entity to compare after than next to greater proportion. I am providing the exact sentence structure below as expected.
Z accounted for 50%, a greater proportion than Y.
This Y could be 30% and sentence would still be correct.

And this is where I am stuck. I don't see any thing(Y) to compare after than in choice B with just in any previous election and no noun form to compare with the earlier noun "a greater proportion".

Let me know where my line of thinking to reduce sentence as above and expected behavior wrt than is wrong.

Z accounted for 50%, a greater proportion than in any previous election.

Now, if we just look at the portion that contains the comparison, the structure is:

50% (was) a greater proportion than in any previous election.

If we look at it, the comparison operator is actually “greater than”. So, we can actually rephrase the sentence as:

50% (was) a proportion greater than in any previous election.

So, the only way to interpret this sentence would be:

50% (was) a proportion greater than (proportion) in any previous election (was).

This is a correct sentence. The key is that the right hand side of “than” should be converted into a clause (means it should have a “verb”, for example, in this case “was”).

A has pronoun error.
B is fine.
Use of Present perfect for action finished in the past is not right. Thus C is wrong.
In D and E which is incorrectly used.