A survey by the National Council of Churches showed that in 1986 there

Hi Rahul, where is the phrase number of females mentioned in the sentence (so that it can refer to this phrase)?

Hi,

Having read all comments, I want to clarify this:

Is option C incorrect because of
a) Pronoun Ambiguity (that is what it refers to is not clear)
OR
b) No Antecedent (that is there is no word that it can refer to

Many thx!

No Antecedent.

This is an important distinction that test takers should make; Pronoun Ambiguity is not preferable on GMAT, while no antecedent is pretty much always wrong.

In other words, no antecedent is a much larger crime than pronoun ambiguity .

Can anyone explain usage of twice vs double in GMAT? Thankyou

Hi Experts,
I didn't understand why is it correct "doubled the figure for"?
Thank you

Would this still be ok to write '1977's ' since i was thinking how can a year possess a number / figure 🤔.
Would appreciate the help !

Indeed. The structure in E is (what's called) double possessive, and is an incorrect structure.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses "Double Possessives”. Have attached the corresponding section of the book, for your reference.

Who would have thought that in 1977 women were allowed to be ministers. Why then do feminists constantly complain that we don't give them enough rights?

Can experts please clarify whether "twice as much as 1977" modifies "almost 9 percent of the nation's clergy" or "20,736 female ministers"?

It modifies "20,736 female ministers," communicating that 20,736 female ministers were twice as many as there had been in 1977.

The original question is -A survey by the National Council of Churches showed that in 1986 there were 20,736 female ministers, almost 9 percent of the nation’s clergy, twice as much as 1977.

I thought “almost 9 percent…clergy “modifies 20,736 female ministers, which in turn is modified by “twice as much as 1977”.Please tell me where I’m wrong.

Posted from my mobile device

almost 9 percent of the nation’s clergy and twice as much as 1977 are modifying the number of female ministers. If so , why they are not joined with a conjunction?

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 the crucial part of this sentence is that 20,736 is twice the number of female ministers that there were in the country in 1977.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Pronouns + Comparisons + Idioms

• Comparisons must always be made between similar things.

A:
1/ This answer choice incorrectly compares "20,736 female ministers" to "1977"; remember, comparisons must always be made between similar things.
2/ Option A incorrectly uses "much" to refer to the countable noun "ministers"; remember, for such a noun, the appropriate term is "many".

B:
1/ This answer choice incorrectly compares "20,736 female ministers" to "1977"; remember, comparisons must always be made between similar things.

C:
1/ This answer choice suffers from pronoun ambiguity, as the pronoun "it" lacks a clear and logical referent.

D: Correct.
1/ This answer choice uses the phrase "the figure for 1977", conveying the intended meaning - that 20,736 is twice the number of female ministers that there were in the country in 1977.
2/ Option D avoids the pronoun error seen in Option C, as it uses no pronouns.
3/ Option D correctly compares "20,736 female ministers" to "the figure for 1977".
4/ Option D avoids the idiomatic error seen in Option A, as it uses the adjective "double" rather than a modifying phrase along the lines of "twice as much", as seen in A.

E:
1/ This answer choice alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "that of 1977's"; the construction of this phrase illogically implies that 20,736 is twice the number of the number of female ministers that there were in the country in 1977; the intended meaning is that 20,736 is twice the number of female ministers that there were in the country in 1977.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Hi MartyTargetTestPrep,

1. Cant we assume in option (B) that ellipsis is in play? I mean, can't we read the option as: twice as many as (IN) 1977
2. In D: is ''for 1977'' okay? should not it be ''in 1977'' to make the comparison a bit more sofisticated?

Q: A survey by the National Council of Churches showed that in 1986 there were 20,736 female ministers, almost 9 percent of the nation’s clergy, twice as much as 1977.

(B) twice as many as 1977
(D) double the figure for 1977

Thanks

A survey by the National Council of Churches showed that in 1986 there were 20,736 female ministers, almost 9 percent of the nation’s clergy, twice as much as 1977.


(A) twice as much as 1977 - "much" for countable - wrong.

(B) twice as many as 1977 - "a figure of 20,736" is compared with the year 1977 - wrong.

(C) double what it was in 1977 - "it" no clear antecedent.

(D) double the figure for 1977 - ok.

(E) a number double that of 1977's - double possessive. Expansion will be "a number double number of 1977 number"