The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated that the world’s

AliciaSierra
I think one reason for the trouble here is that the word "more" has a surprisingly large number of different, if related, uses. Let's look at what "more" is modifying in the two questions, which we can call Crash and Cars.

Crash B) "more" is an adverb modifying the verb phrase "are closely integrated." The markets are integrated more often than before. This oddly implies that sometimes they are integrated and sometimes they are not.
Crash D) "more" is an adverb modifying "closely." There has been an increase in how closely the markets are integrated.

Cars C) "more" is an adverb modifying "fuel-efficient." The fuel efficiency of these cars is higher than the fuel efficiency of past cars.
Cars D) "more" has two possible uses: it could still be an adverb as in C, or it could be an adjective modifying "cars." That's the downside of flexible words--they can be interpreted in unintended ways if we're not clear. Now, do both of these uses work? Let's look at the other side of the comparison: "than those at any other time." It's not entirely clear what "those" is, but let's say it's manufacturers. So we're saying this: "Manufacturers can make more fuel-efficient small cars than manufacturers at any other time." Is it clear which use of "more" applies now? My natural tendency would be to interpret this as comparing the actions of the manufacturers: one makes more cars than the other, as in your interpretation. But we might be able to read it the other way, leaving this option quite unclear. Consider the simple sentence "I can make more delicious cookies than you can." Am I making more cookies (that are delicious), or are my cookies more delicious? It's not clear.

Does this answer your question? In the end, we need to look at both the immediate placement of "more" and the way that the modified portion fits into the overall sentence structure (since "more" often works with "than").

Even I don't get this one. Coincidentally , I have the same doubt as posted by the thread starter.

The Crash demonstrated that MARKETS ARE INTEGRATED MORE THAN EVER BEFORE
AND
AS A RESULT
EVENTS ARE TRANSMITTED.

Implicitly, the markets are so integrated now than ever before that events are transmitted blah blah.....

What is wrong with option (B).

I know there is a parallel structure of ...that and ....that. However, knowing that GMAT is becoming meaning based now a days, the meaning would get preference over grammatical structure.

So first we will have to get the idea presented in the original sentence then only we can come to grammar, and IMHO my observation like thread starter's is correct.

For instance:

Original :BBC reported that tsunami destroyed the nearby coastal villages and that the people of the nearby villages went missing.

Per the meaning of this sentence we know that the DESTRUCTION LED 'people of the nearby villages went missing'.So, even if we have a "...that....that" parallel marker , we cannot justify the parallelism here.

Corrected version: BBC reported that tsunami destroyed the nearby coastal villages , and THUS the people of the nearby villages went missing.

Notice the use of THUS as a connector in COMBO with AND.

I hope I would have given a better example, but I am handicapped to think a better one.


Please advise !

Hello Guys,

Thanks for taking this issue up.

I just consulted with Matt Douglas (The Host of GMATT Mondays). In his opinion, Choice D is correct because the descriptive word more properly placed ahead of the term it modifies i.e. closely integrated. Choice B is wrong for the same reason.

If more is the direct object, then it can be placed after verb but when we use more as an adjective, it should be placed ahead of the term it modifies.

Thanks

(A) integrated more closely than never before and

(B) closely integrated more than ever before so Wordy and Awkward

(C) more closely integrated as never before while - Incorrect

(D) more closely integrated than ever before and that

More X than Y is the correct idiom , further it maintain the " that - that " parallelism..

The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated that the world’s capital markets are more closely integrated than ever before and that events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously.

(E) more than ever before closely integrated as - Wordy and Awkward

Parallelism, Idiom

(A) integrated more closely than never before and

and : it is not clear whether this and is another thing that this crash demonstrated or it is a separate fact. In the latter, it should be preceded by a comma, while in the former a 'that' is required to parallel the first 'that' after demonstrated.

(B) closely integrated more than ever before so

'so' here indicates a result; hence, it is a coordinating conjunction (remember the FANBOYS family). When a coordinating conjunction is used to connect to independent sentences, it should be preceded by a comma.

Answer is D.

Here is what I think.

The word "more" should modify closely integrated. Therefore Option D is correct.

General Rule :
When more is the direct object------------placed after verb
When more is used as an adjective ---------------placed ahead of the term it modifies.

The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated that the world’s capital markets are integrated more closely than never before and events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously.

(A) integrated more closely than never before and -> Never is not used with before. Never can be used alone. But with before, ever should be used.
(B) closely integrated more than ever before so -> so -> Provides a reason but we are looking for two facts
(C) more closely integrated as never before while -> Never is not used with before. Never can be used alone. But with before, ever should be used.
(D) more closely integrated than ever before and that -> Correct
(E) more than ever before closely integrated as -> as -> Also provides a reason but we don't want a reason but to report facts.

1. More than never is unidiomatic, so we have B, C and E.
2. We need "that" at the end because of the previous "that".

So we have only D. OA is D.

Yes, when we say that X is happening more than before, we are comparing how often X happens now to how often it happened before. The implied meaning of this expression is "X is happening more often than (it did) before." If we use an adjective ("closely integrated"), the same idea applies. "Our company is more X than ever before" means "Our company is more X than (it was) ever before."

Please help me to clear 'integrated more closely' or 'more closely integrated' ?

Since position of an adverb is NOT necessarily after a verb, I really do not see why A should be better than D. In my opnion, A and D are equivalent.

The 1987 crash demonstrated two truths: that the world’s capital markets are integrated… and that events… may be transmitted. Because these two truths must be presented in grammatically parallel structure, that must be added to the second clause. The correct idiom is more than ever, not more than never.


A Second subordinate clause must begin with that; more than never is incorrect
B Moving more distorts the meaning; so is not parallel to that
C More… as never before is not correct; while is not parallel to that
D Correct. In this sentence, the two clauses are parallel, each beginning with that, and they are correctly joined with the conjunction and; the correct idiom is used.
E This word sequence is incoherent; as is not parallel to that

The correct answer is D.

Posting my own analysis, so I can come back to this if need be. Also, critiques are welcome.

The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated that the world’s capital markets are integrated more closely than never before and events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously.


A) integrated more closely than never before and

Sentence structure:
--(main)--> The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated
....--(subordinate)--> that the world’s capital markets are integrated more closely
........--(subordinate)--> than [they have] never [been] before
--(coordinate)--> and events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously

Why this answer is wrong:
"than never before" is the wrong idiom.

The "and events" clause is conjoined incorrectly as a coordinate clause rather than as a subordinate clause. This isn't grammatically incorrect, but it's not clear how or why these two clauses are related to each other. The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated ... and events in one part of the global village... In my opinion, lack of parallelism in itself does not make this one wrong. However, without the "that" the "and events" clause gets conjoined to the wrong clause. So, the lack of parallelism indirectly leads to this being incorrect.


B) closely integrated more than ever before so

Sentence structure:
--(main)--> The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated
....--(subordinate)--> that the world’s capital markets are closely integrated more
........--(subordinate)--> than [they have] ever [been] before
--(coordinate)--> so events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously

Why this answer is wrong:
The first reason for why I think this answer is incorrect is due to the use of "more". the world’s capital markets are closely integrated more... This clause is a little awkward, but I think grammatically it's fine. The bigger issue with this clause is that "more" modifies "integrated" rather than "closely". Having "more" modify "integrated" is an issue because it's not as clear as when "more" modifies "closely". When "more" modifies "integrated" it could mean that there are more connections between capital markets or that the existing connections between capital markets are more closely connected. If "more" modifies "closely", it's clear that the existing connections between capital markets are more closely connected, which seems to agree with the clause events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously.

The second reason for why I think this answer is incorrect is due to the "so events" clause. The "so events" clause is joined to the main clause by a coordinate conjunction. Thus, the sentence is equivalent to saying: Because the financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated that the world’s capital markets are more closely integrated, events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously. We have a cause and effect, but we have the wrong cause. TGC 's post above has a better analysis for this than I have.


C) more closely integrated as never before while

Sentence structure:
--(main)--> The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated
....--(subordinate)--> that the world’s capital markets are more closely integrated
........--(subordinate)--> as [they have] never [been] before
............--(subordinate)--> while events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously

Why this answer is wrong:
"as never before" is the wrong idiom.

The "while events" clause is conjoined to the wrong superordinate clause. It's hard to say where this clause should be joined. We're trying to show cause and effect, but I don't think this subordinate clause can be joined anywhere in this sentence that will help us achieve that result. (More on this below [1])

"while" would not be the right conjunction. Instead, we are probably looking for a conjunction that shows cause and effect. But this doesn't really matter since the clause itself is incorrect as mentioned above.


D) more closely integrated than ever before and that

Sentence structure:
--(main)--> The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated
....--(subordinate)--> that the world’s capital markets are more closely integrated
........--(subordinate)--> than [they have] ever [been] before
....--(subordinate)--> and that events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously

Why this answer is correct:
I, like many others, wish that we could somehow show cause and effect in this sentence. And unfortunately, this sentence does not do that. However, despite not showing cause and effect, this sentence is grammatically correct and coherent. It's the only answer that can claim to do this.

In my opinion, I don't think the lack of parallelism in the other answers makes them wrong. And conversely, I don't think that the parallelism here is what makes this one right. Rather, I think the parallelism is a means to an end. The parallelism functions to join the "and events" clause to the main clause (the "The financial crash" clause) as a subordinate. Having the "and events" clause conjoined as a subordinate of the main clause is the only sentence structure that makes sense out of all of the listed answers.


E) more than ever before closely integrated as

Sentence structure:
--(main)--> The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated
....--(subordinate)--> that the world’s capital markets are more
........--(subordinate)--> than [they have] ever [been] before closely integrated
............--(subordinate)--> as events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously

Why this answer is wrong:
The placement of "more than ever before" makes this sentence grammatically incorrect. The clause "that the world’s capital markets are more" is incomplete. Maybe this could be fixed with some added commas.

The "as events" clause is conjoined to the wrong superordinate clause. It's hard to say where this clause should be joined. We're trying to show cause and effect, but I don't think this subordinate clause can be joined anywhere in this sentence that will help us achieve that result. (More on this below [1])

"as" would not be the right conjunction. Instead, we are probably looking for a conjunction that shows cause and effect. But this doesn't really matter since the clause itself is incorrect as mentioned above.


--- Footnotes ---

1.
I, like many others, was looking for an option that would show cause and effect. Unfortunately, the only answer that is grammatically correct, uses the correct idioms, and is coherent is option B. The best sentence I could come up with to show cause-and-effect was something like the following: The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated that the world’s capital markets are more closely integrated than ever before and that because they are so closely integrated, events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously.


Sorry for the long post, but I didn't want to forget my analysis. Also, as mentioned above, feedback and debate are welcome.

2 points to consider.

"More than ever" is the correct idiom.
Required parallelism of "...demonstrated that..XXX.. and that..YYY.."

The intent in this question is to state that the financial crash ‘demonstrated’ two things:
a) Markets are closely integrated
b) Events may be transmitted instantaneously

The first thing to notice here is the word ‘that’ after ‘demonstrated’ in the non-underlined portion of the sentence.
The structure that we want to see is – ‘demonstrated that X and that Y’

If we can find this parallelism in the answer, we can quickly get to the best choice.

Another tip-off: the correct idiom is ‘more closely than ever’

We need to look for an option that observes both the aspects.

Let’s take a look:

(A) integrated more closely than never before and

(B) closely integrated more than ever before so

(C) more closely integrated as never before while

(D) more closely integrated than ever before and that

(E) more than ever before closely integrated as

Option D is the only choice with ‘that’ in the structure.
Eliminate the other options.

Option D is the best choice.

Hope this helps!

The financial crash of October 1987 demonstrated that the world’s capital markets are integrated more closely than never before and events in one part of the global village may be transmitted to the rest of the village—almost instantaneously.

(D) more closely integrated than ever before and that -> Proper parallelism and "ever" is correctly used for comparison. -----> Is use of "that" correct. Shouldn't it be "those"

pareshbitm No, because we're not referring to "those events." "That" is part of the phrase "demonstrated that," as explained by Helium: