It is currently 24 Jun 2017, 19:21

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

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 196
According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Aug 2007, 18:33
3
KUDOS
31
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

39% (01:37) correct 61% (00:42) wrong based on 1369 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were 198,113 female science and engineering graduate students, almost 42% of the graduate students in those fields, twice as much as 1981.

a. twice as much as 1981

b. twice as many as 1981

c. double the figure for 1981

d. double what it was in 1981

e. a number double that of 1981’s
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by Gnpth on 07 Oct 2014, 03:09, edited 1 time in total.
Updated the OA for new Project
Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
Posts: 177
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Aug 2007, 03:23
I will go wtih E as well.

I believe the comparision is between the no of students in 1981 and 2003, however owing to the insertion of the inessential modifier clause "almost ..." which only serves to describe what 198,113 means in terms of percentage, we need to clarify what we are comparing i.e. a number double..... Choice E removes any ambiguity as to what is being compared.
_________________

Regards

Subhen

Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 196
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Aug 2007, 09:31
3
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Hi All,
So, this was a question from MGMAT Cat. It was in the 700-800 range. Like some of you I had put B. But OA is C.

Here is their explanation:

In the original sentence, “much” incorrectly references the quantity of female graduate students. Students are countable, so “many” is the correct term. Additionally, “as 1981” incorrectly completes the comparison, illogically comparing the number of people (the “198,113 female science and engineering graduate students”) to a year (“1981”).

Choice B- “As 1981” incorrectly completes the comparison, illogically comparing the number of people (the “198,113 female science and engineering graduate students”) to a year (“1981”).

Choice C- “Double the figure” places the emphasis on the number of female graduate students, and correctly completes the comparison between the number of people in one year (198,133 in 2003) and the number of people in another year (the figure for 1981).
Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 196
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there [#permalink]

Show Tags

29 Aug 2007, 10:47
Choice D is wrong because- “What it was” is wordy, awkward, and unclear. The singular pronoun "it" has no clear antecedent.

Choice E is wrong because- “Double that of 1981’s” is wordy, awkward, and unclear. The singular pronoun "that" has no clear antecedent. The possessive "1981's" is not followed by a noun to possess.

Still thinking about if " double the figure IN 1981" is correct.....
Manager
Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 70
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Aug 2007, 05:07
Figure for 1981 is anytime better than Figure In 1981.

I cannot find the reasoning for this but if you pick annual reports for any good company, u'll find tons of phrases like this and comparisions of this sort involving figures and years.
Eventually Figure for.. starts sounding better.
Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 196
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Aug 2007, 09:24
I agree. I looked at the explanation again for each of the choices. And they don't seem to pick on " ..IN 1981". Therefore, i don't think it's wrong. However, given the choice between the two- I would pick " ...FOR 1981"
Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2009
Posts: 106
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there [#permalink]

Show Tags

16 Mar 2012, 22:32
5
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were 198,113 female science and engineering graduate students, almost 42% of the graduate students in those fields, twice as much as 1981.

a. twice as much as 1981 comparing 198K to 1981, wrong

b. twice as many as 1981 comparing 198K to 1981, wrong

c. double the figure for 1981 ok

d. double what it was in 1981"it" is 198K or 42%? wrong

e. a number double that of 1981’s 1981 cannot be a possessive noun, wrong
Manager
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Posts: 112
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GMAT 1: 530 Q42 V20
GMAT 2: 540 Q43 V28
GMAT 3: 680 Q48 V35
WE: Business Development (Hospitality and Tourism)
Re: According to the national science foundation [#permalink]

Show Tags

18 May 2012, 08:51
A - as much for numbers is wrong
B - X, twice as many as - this is right construction. Needs the number right before twice to modify.
D - 'what it was' - wordy and it has no clear referent
E - 'that' has no clear referent.

IMO C.
_________________

KUDOS - if my post has helped you.

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
Posts: 222
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there [#permalink]

Show Tags

13 May 2014, 16:13
4
KUDOS
Expert's post
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Howdy all,

I think that @NYCAnalyst did a nice job of clearly explaining the answer choices, so I don't want to spend a lot of time analyzing them. I'd like to talk about a specific aspect of this question. In this sentence, what is the roll of "double?"

Let's start by looking at the correct answer in the sentence:

According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were 198,113 female science and engineering graduate students, almost 42% of the graduate students in those fields, double the figure for 1981.

So in this sentence, it's important to realize that "double" is not modifying anything. It is not an adjective. In this sentence, it is a predeterminer. To learn more about pre-determiners, you can start here, and then read the Wiki article on Combinations of Determiner. You can see here that "double" can function as a predeterminer in its definition.

We could re-write the sentence by removing the modifying phrases and simplifying some of the language to make this clear:

Quote:
In 2003, there were 198,113 female science and engineering graduate students, double the figure for 1981.

So in this case, "double" is a predeterminer for "figure" which refers back to the 198,113 students. So what it really means is that the figure from 2003 is twice the number from 1981; it's twice as much. This is one of the reasons that (C) is the best choice. It is the most concise expression of "twice as much as the figure."

I hope that this helps everyone understand this question a little bit more. It's a tough one!
_________________

Kevin Rocci
Magoosh Test Prep

CEO
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2524
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Stanford '20
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there [#permalink]

Show Tags

11 Apr 2017, 08:48
According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were 198,113 female science and engineering graduate students, almost 42% of the graduate students in those fields, twice as much as 1981.

we are comparing # of people in 2003 with # of people in 1981.

a. twice as much as 1981
much is not correct for countable nouns. moreover, it compares # of people with a YEAR. incorrect.

b. twice as many as 1981
many is correct, but this option compares # of people with a year.

c. double the figure for 1981
looks good.

d. double what it was in 1981
it does not have an antecedent...

e. a number double that of 1981’s
not clear what the comparison is.

C looks good!
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 283
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there [#permalink]

Show Tags

11 Apr 2017, 18:13
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Manager
Joined: 01 Jun 2015
Posts: 136
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q48 V26
According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 May 2017, 06:43
GMATNinja

Sir if I had written option E in the following way,would it be right then?

" a number doubling the figure of 1981’s"
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 623
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 May 2017, 14:16
Expert's post
Top Contributor
Quote:
GMATNinja

Sir if I had written option E in the following way,would it be right then?

" a number doubling the figure of 1981’s"

Good question. This wouldn't actually be correct, mostly because it's redundant. "The figure of" already indicates a possessive, so you definitely wouldn't need 1981 (or 1981's, in this case) to be possessive, too.

A similar issue is mentioned in GMATNinjaTwo's post on page 2 of this thread: https://gmatclub.com/forum/because-of-t ... 53061.html
_________________

www.gmatninja.com + blog + 1 (hint, hint)

YouTube live(!!) sentence correction session! June 26, 9:00 am PST/8:30 pm IST. Click here for the live feed on GMAT Club's YouTube channel.

Join us for the verbal experts' live chat every Wednesday, 7:30 am PST/8:00 pm IST! Details available here.

Verbal Experts' Topics of the Week:
Ultimate CR Guide for Beginners | Ultimate RC Guide for Beginners | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | All Topics of the Week

Rules for posting in verbal forum | How to use search function (before posting questions!) | GMAT Club's ultimate verbal study plan, 2017 edition

Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there   [#permalink] 08 May 2017, 14:16
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
58 According to the a study by the Carnegie Foundation for the 46 23 May 2017, 07:39
2 Unlike the original National Museum of Science and 5 11 Feb 2013, 04:48
7 Unlike the original National Museum of Science and 5 07 Aug 2016, 00:29
46 Unlike the original National Museum of Science and 9 20 Apr 2016, 04:46
55 Unlike the original National Museum of Science and 51 03 Jun 2017, 01:24
Display posts from previous: Sort by