Last visit was: 14 Jul 2025, 02:13 It is currently 14 Jul 2025, 02:13
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
avatar
AKASHSURANA
Joined: 11 Aug 2018
Last visit: 01 Jan 2021
Posts: 8
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 61
Posts: 8
Kudos: 4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
generis
User avatar
Senior SC Moderator
Joined: 22 May 2016
Last visit: 18 Jun 2022
Posts: 5,293
Own Kudos:
36,938
 [9]
Given Kudos: 9,464
Products:
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 5,293
Kudos: 36,938
 [9]
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
5
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
rahulsinha21
Joined: 09 Feb 2020
Last visit: 24 Mar 2024
Posts: 3
Given Kudos: 52
Posts: 3
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
EducationAisle
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 14 July 2025
Posts: 3,875
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,875
Kudos: 3,573
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rahulsinha21
Why is option C wrong, How "IT" is ambiguous should it refer to "number of female" which is actually the comparison.
Hi Rahul, where is the phrase number of females mentioned in the sentence (so that it can refer to this phrase)?
User avatar
donaldmcdonald
Joined: 12 Sep 2020
Last visit: 14 Feb 2022
Posts: 35
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 143
Products:
Posts: 35
Kudos: 24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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!
User avatar
EducationAisle
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 14 July 2025
Posts: 3,875
Own Kudos:
3,573
 [2]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,875
Kudos: 3,573
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
higuyi
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
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 :) .
User avatar
ligamenttears
Joined: 21 Jun 2016
Last visit: 13 Jul 2025
Posts: 21
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 33
Location: Austria
Schools: WBS CEIBS
GMAT 1: 660 Q46 V32
Schools: WBS CEIBS
GMAT 1: 660 Q46 V32
Posts: 21
Kudos: 5
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can anyone explain usage of twice vs double in GMAT? Thankyou
avatar
niclao
Joined: 11 Dec 2020
Last visit: 01 Jan 2022
Posts: 2
Given Kudos: 6
Posts: 2
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Experts,
I didn't understand why is it correct "doubled the figure for"?
Thank you ;)
User avatar
Taulark1
Joined: 06 Jan 2017
Last visit: 15 Mar 2025
Posts: 128
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 750
Posts: 128
Kudos: 43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
souvik101990
E is wrong because of the following:

that of 1977's

it should be either "that of 1977"
or "1977's"

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 ! :)
User avatar
EducationAisle
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Last visit: 14 July 2025
Posts: 3,875
Own Kudos:
3,573
 [1]
Given Kudos: 159
Location: India
Schools: ISB
GPA: 3.31
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: ISB
Posts: 3,875
Kudos: 3,573
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
souvik101990
E is wrong because of the following:

that of 1977's

it should be either "that of 1977"
or "1977's"
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.
Attachments

Double Possessive.pdf [12.78 KiB]
Downloaded 64 times

User avatar
josephineestrela
Joined: 20 Jan 2022
Last visit: 14 May 2022
Posts: 5
Location: Argentina
Posts: 5
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?
User avatar
Sachinpri
Joined: 17 May 2021
Last visit: 13 Oct 2023
Posts: 26
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 22
Posts: 26
Kudos: 9
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can experts please clarify whether "twice as much as 1977" modifies "almost 9 percent of the nation's clergy" or "20,736 female ministers"?
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,487
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Sachinpri
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.
User avatar
Sachinpri
Joined: 17 May 2021
Last visit: 13 Oct 2023
Posts: 26
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 22
Posts: 26
Kudos: 9
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MartyTargetTestPrep
Sachinpri
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
User avatar
akt715
Joined: 12 May 2021
Last visit: 06 Aug 2023
Posts: 69
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 126
Posts: 69
Kudos: 7
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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?
User avatar
ExpertsGlobal5
User avatar
Experts' Global Representative
Joined: 10 Jul 2017
Last visit: 14 July 2025
Posts: 5,143
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 38
Location: India
GMAT Date: 11-01-2019
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 5,143
Kudos: 4,729
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-
TrueLie
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

(B) twice as many as 1977

(C) double what it was in 1977

(D) double the figure for 1977

(E) a number double that of 1977's


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
User avatar
ashutosh_73
Joined: 19 Jan 2018
Last visit: 30 Oct 2024
Posts: 237
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 86
Location: India
Posts: 237
Kudos: 1,265
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
MartyTargetTestPrep
Sachinpri
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.


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 :please: :please:
User avatar
Raman109
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Last visit: 16 Jun 2025
Posts: 811
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 33
Products:
Posts: 811
Kudos: 143
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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"
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7349 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts