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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so that it was the lowest in two years suggests that the gradual improvement in the job market is continuing.
Surprisingly, Britain is one the OECD’s worst performers over the past decade. At 4%, its unemployment rate is at its lowest level since 1975.
In July Britain's unemployment rate fell for the 13th straight month, to 5.5%, the lowest level since April 1990.
Can someone explain why (D) is incorrect. I have come across sentences that said inflation hit to a two-year low level and so confused as to why (D) is incorrect.
Re: According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so
[#permalink]
Show Tags
13 Mar 2010, 00:20
17
5
Hey All,
Bakfed pretty much nailed this one on the head. It's just not idiomatic. To be more specific:
(D) to a two-year low level
There are two ways we could read this.
#1: "low level" is meant to be read as one thing, and two-year is modifying it (as in "It was a lovely barn dance", in which "lovely" is modifying the compound noun "barn dance). This doesn't make any sense, however, because there's no such thing as a "low level".
#2: "Two-year" is an adverb modifying the main adjective "low", which is describing "level" (as in "It was a dark green sweater", in which dark is modifying green, which is modifying sweater). This doesn't make any sense either, however, because there's no such thing as a level that is "two-year low".
Hope that helps a bit!
-t
_________________
Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco
Re: According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so
[#permalink]
Show Tags
02 May 2010, 00:27
2
1
TommyWallach wrote:
(D) to a two-year low level
There are two ways we could read this.
#1: "low level" is meant to be read as one thing, and two-year is modifying it (as in "It was a lovely barn dance", in which "lovely" is modifying the compound noun "barn dance). This doesn't make any sense, however, because there's no such thing as a "low level".
#2: "Two-year" is an adverb modifying the main adjective "low", which is describing "level" (as in "It was a dark green sweater", in which dark is modifying green, which is modifying sweater). This doesn't make any sense either, however, because there's no such thing as a level that is "two-year low".
Tommy, is the following construction correct? I've removed the word 'level' from choice D.
According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment to a two-year lowsuggests that the gradual improvement in the job market is continuing.
_________________
Re: According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Jan 2013, 21:11
1
According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so that it was the lowest in two years suggests that the gradual improvement in the job market is continuing.
(A) so that it was the lowest in two years (B) so that it was the lowest two-year rate (C) to what would be the lowest in two years (D) to a two-year low level (E) to the lowest level in two years
Hi! I would like to clarify pronoun antecedent. It seems that as sentences become more difficult, pronoun antecedent eligbility becomes less clear-cut. I have read in some places that an antecedent cannot be an object of a preposition but elsewhere it says this is possible. Would anyone be able to help clarify please?
Thanks!
For example, for above, the OG says "it" is ambiguous because it can refer to either decrease or unemployment. I can see that if "it" refers to decrease, the sentence won't make sense. However, the OA does not say it's a wrong antecedent but an ambiguous one. Unemployment is part of a prep phrase. In OG13, the OA says that objects of prepositions can't be antecedents for pronouns?
Q: Fossils of the arm of a sloth found in Puerto Rico in 1991, and dated at 34 million years old, made it the earliest known mammal of the Greater Antilles islands. OA: "Because sloth is the object of a preposition and not the subject of the sentence, there is no reasonable antecedent for "it"
Re: According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so
[#permalink]
Show Tags
20 Jan 2013, 21:33
Hi,
An object of a preposition can be a pronoun antecedent if the prepositional phrase is post-modifying the head noun. Consider the following example of a noun phrase in which a prepositional phrase is used to post-modify the head noun: "the coat of many colors". The prepositional phrase is "of many colors." The head noun is coat. This head noun is pre-modified by the identifier the. In addition, it is post-modified by the prepositional phrase of many colors. It is a simple matter to determine if this complex structure is functioning as a complete noun phrase, as it is always possible to substitute a pronoun for a whole noun phrase. So, in the utterance the coat of many colors was beautiful a pronoun may be substituted for the noun phrase to produce the modified utterance it was beautiful. _________________
Re: According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so
[#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Jan 2013, 12:11
Quote:
According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so that it was the lowest in two years suggests that the gradual improvement in the job market is continuing.
The problem here is, that the pronoun "it" refers to "the July decrease in unemployment" which makes no sense. The unemployment should be the lowest in two years. Only D and E solve this problem, but D is unclear. Hence it has to be "E".
_________________
Re: According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so
[#permalink]
Show Tags
19 Dec 2013, 16:59
eybrj2 wrote:
50. According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so that it was the lowest in two years suggests that the gradual improvement in the job market is continuing.
(A) so that it was the lowest in two years (B) so that it was the lowest two-year rate (C) to what would be the lowest in two years (D) to a two-year low level (E) to the lowest level in two years
Re: According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so
[#permalink]
Show Tags
03 Jan 2014, 00:42
1
eybrj2 wrote:
50. According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so that it was the lowest in two years suggests that the gradual improvement in the job market is continuing.
(A) so that it was the lowest in two years (B) so that it was the lowest two-year rate (C) to what would be the lowest in two years (D) to a two-year low level (E) to the lowest level in two years
nice question.
"so that +clause" is a adverb clause of purpose. of course this clause need a main clause. There is no main clause. A and B are gone.
in c, "would be " show the certainty, not a fact. This is wrong. we need to show a fact. C is gone
in D, "two year low" is not idiomatic. This phrase is meaningless.
_________________
If anyone in this gmat forum is in England,Britain, pls, email to me, (thanghnvn@gmail.com) . I have some questions and need your advise. Thank a lot.
Re: According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Mar 2014, 22:42
Quote:
Between D & E,E seems more appropriate.But exactly why is D wrong?
The level that we are talking about is the lowest level in two years. 'two year low level' is frequently used in colloquial English and that is why it might sound fine to the ear. We have to use the adjective 'lowest'.
Re: According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so
[#permalink]
Show Tags
02 Oct 2014, 07:47
hi guys.
i chose B for it which was wrong , but as per my thought process B is the least ambiguous among all of them. Let me know if am wrong.
Quote:
According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so that it was the lowest in two years suggests that the gradual improvement in the job market is continuing.
(A) so that it was the lowest in two years (B) so that it was the lowest two-year rate (C) to what would be the lowest in two years (D) to a two-year low level (E) to the lowest level in two years
If we analyse all the options A to E, we can see all the options are talking about "decrease in unemployment".
If i go for the meaning of the sentence , its trying to say that because rate of unemployment was lowest in july that's why economists think job market is gradually improving.
(A) so that it was the lowest in two years - incorrect : it refers to decrease not rate of decrease and if it was lowest in 2 years that actually means there has been no change in job market, thus it is wrong (B) so that it was the lowest two-year rate-correct - only this option talks about rate instead of just decrease, which is in sync with the meaning of the sentence (C) to what would be the lowest in two years -incorrect - like option A its also talking about decrease (D) to a two-year low level-incorrect - like option A its also talking about decrease (E) to the lowest level in two years-incorrect - like option A its also talking about decrease
Re: According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so
[#permalink]
Show Tags
23 Dec 2014, 19:41
Consider the case
1)"stone wall" 2)"wall of stone"
In 1) stone is an adjective modifying wall. We can read "stone wall" as a single noun or only "wall, which has an adjective stone. GMAT consider such constructions ambiguous. in 2) stone is an object of preposition.
GMAT has preference to convert adjective to object of preposition.
AKG1593 wrote:
Between D & E,E seems more appropriate.But exactly why is D wrong?
Posted from my mobile device
_________________
Middle of nowhere!
gmatclubot
Re: According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so &nbs
[#permalink]
23 Dec 2014, 19:41
close
70% (00:59) correct 
