A report released by the American Diabetes Association maintains that

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

First of all, much is better than many because an increase isn't countable and therefore requires much. Eliminate (B). Notice that you can't yet eliminate (E) because it changes the subject of many to cases. Since you can count cases, many is correct. Next, the original sentence contains the passive expression can be attributed. (C) makes the expression active but adds the entirely unclear pronoun they. (D) does the same by adding doctors, but the addition alters the meaning of the original sentence; the original sentence doesn't suggest that doctors are the intended subject or that they're actually attributing diabetes to such causes. Therefore, keep the passive expression (it's not always wrong) in order to preserve the meaning of the sentence. Finally, eliminate (E) because cases of increased type II diabetes is not a phrase that uses an idiomatic word order. (A) wins.

An 800 test taker knows that the passive voice is correct when it is impossible or inappropriate to name the subject who performs an action.

VeritasKarishma Mam I was able to eliminate Option C as they does not have pronoun antecedent. Option D is also incorrect as it changes the intended meaning of the sentence. Doctors are not attributing to poor eating and exercise habits of Young Americans.
Option B is incorrect as increase in cases is uncountable hence many cannot be used.

I am unable to eliminate Option E.

Kindly guide

What is the intended meaning of the sentence?

A report is released by the ADA which maintains that the increase in number of cases of diabetes is due to bad habits.

(B) many of the increase in cases of type II diabetes are attributable
"increase" will use "much", not many since "increase" is uncountable.

(C) they can attribute much of the increase in cases of type II diabetes
Introduces the pronoun "they" without an antecedent.

(D) doctors attribute much of the increase in cases of type II diabetes
The report says that the increase can be attributed to bad habits, not that the doctors attribute increase to bad habits. These are very different things. A survey of doctors can establish that they attribute increase in number of cases to say A, but the report finds out the reason for increase and attributes the increase to that reason on its own.
So report says that the increase can be attributed to A.

(E) many of the cases of increased type II diabetes can be attributed
"increase" is in the number of cases, not in diabetes. When we use "increased type II diabetes", increase is modifying diabetes which means that diabetes has got more severe. But actually the increase is in the number of cases of diabetes.

Answer (A)

A report released by the American Diabetes Association maintains that much of the increase in cases of type II diabetes can be attributed to the poor eating and exercise habits of young Americans.


(A) much of the increase in cases of type II diabetes can be attributed . : seems okay, will hold

(B) many of the increase in cases of type II diabetes are attributable

(C) they can attribute much of the increase in cases of type II diabetes
they refers to ??

(D) doctors attribute much of the increase in cases of type II diabetes
Awkward statement.. had to read two times to understand.. so may be wrong idiom


(E) many of the cases of increased type II diabetes can be attributed

VeritasKarishma MentorTutoring AjiteshArun daagh

I am not convinced that addition of a subject "doctors" changes the "intended" meaning or the "original" meaning in the option D :

(D) doctors attribute much of the increase in cases of type II diabetes

I have seen many examples, in which we add a proper subject in the correct option. And it seems nothing illogical that association took the advice of doctors, and they attributed some effect to some cause

Moreover, the option 'A' should not be treated as a sole legitimate beholder of the "intended" or "original" meaning.

Experts, kindly help.

And thanks in advance !!

Hi abhishekmayank,

I agree. I too am not a big fan of the "preserve the meaning of the original sentence" approach mentioned in the explanation. If we had to take a call, we'd have to decide whether the report (a) wants to tell us what the cause is or (b) wants to tell us what doctors think the cause is. I don't think this is a fair call. And because this is a non-official question, we could just ignore it.

I should point out, however, that it would be very unusual for a GMAT question in which there is a 4:1 meaning split to go with the option that carries that "1" meaning. Not impossible, but very unusual.

Hello, abhishekmayank. I concur with both you and AjiteshArun. I often say that the only part of a Sentence Correction question that you can take for gospel is the non-underlined portion. If the original sentence conveyed the intended meaning, underlined portion and all, then (A) would be the correct answer much more often than proves to be the case. The shell of the sentence here is the following:

A report released by the American Diabetes Association maintains that... to the poor eating and exercise habits of young Americans.

Whether the report focuses on an unattributed increase in cases of type II diabetes or places doctors front and center, we can only speculate. Although I did choose (A) because my rule of thumb is not to abandon an answer unless I can find an arguable element within it, I see nothing inherently wrong with invoking doctors (as qualified professionals who might hold an opinion mentioned in the report) to do the attributing that is mentioned.

I would say an 800 test-taker knows when to call foul on a question and move on to more productive prep work (with official questions). +1 to Bunuel for finding a new question to post, but -1 to Kaplan for producing a subpar set of answer choices. Thank you for calling my attention to the question.

- Andrew

Yes, there is no "original" meaning but there is "logical meaning". I have explained here (https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-report-rel ... l#p2119838) why it is not correct to add doctors here. Yes, there are questions in which the correct option changes passive to active and adds a subject like scientists etc. That approach is NOT correct here.

A report will usually arrive at a certain conclusion after evaluating the data and give you that conclusion - "much of the increase can be attributed to A and B". It is adding value here.

If the report says "doctors attribute much of the increase to A and B", how did the report add value? What did the report conclude? What are the report's findings? It shouldn't just rephrase a fact. It should give us its findings. It needs to tell us whether A and B actually are the contributors, not just what the doctors say. We know what the doctors say.

Hence, (A) is logical here.

Thanks VeritasKarishma for complimenting the replies !!

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.