According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were

Question

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

MBAB123 · Answer

jabhatta2 . Option B is wrong because it compares the number of graduates to a year (1981), and this comparison does not make sense. Hope this helps!

GMATGuruNY · Answer

Correct!
One way to spot this error is to observe the lack of parallelism between the first part of the comparison and the second.
B:   In 2003  there were 198,113 female science and engineering graduate students, twice as many as  1981  .
Whereas the blue portion includes a preposition --  in  -- the red portion does not.
As a result:
blue portion = MODIFIER
red portion = NOUN
The two portions serve different functions and thus are not parallel.
Eliminate B.

Correct:
  In 2003  there were 198,113 female science and engineering graduate students, twice as many as  IN 1981 . 
Here, the two colored portions are parallel.

gagan0303 · Answer

GMATNinja  need your expert expert analysis on this one. Please help.

Gagan

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  GMATGuruNY  - actually the OA is C in which there is no such perfect parallelism between the prepositions   as you have noted above in the yellow highlight marked as "Correct"

OA C has this parralelism instead 
  In 2003  there were 198,113 female science and engineering graduate students, double the figure  FOR 1981 .

I rejected C because option D seemed to be "PERFECTLY parallel"

In C as you can see - "In 2003" and "For 1981" are maybe prepositions -- they are not perfectly parallel prepositions as seen in option D.

How would you eliminate option D and keep C (Option D does have perfect parallelism).

I see that option D has a pronoun issue but i thought pronoun ambiguity is not 100 % cut and dry topic on the GMAT. It can be reasonably said the "IT" in option D refers to the "number" because the other antencedent (percentage) is within a non essential clause. Essential clauses can be dropped and the essential meaning of the sentence still has to make sense.

Parallelism certainly is weighed more heavily and D has 100 % perfect parallelism

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  IanStewart  - Two quick questions on D -

# 1) i didnt think there was pronoun ambiguity in option D because of the usage of the singular verb - "Was"

Below are the 2 possible antencedents for " It was in 1981 "
- 198,113 female science and engineering graduate  students - plural noun because of the  students 
- 42% of the graduate  students - plural noun because of the  students

Both of these antecedents are plural

So i thought -- hmm, given the antecedents are plural -- how can  double what it was in 1981  refer to any of these plural antecedents given the verb  was  is "singular"

Then I said -- well maybe the "IT" is a dummy pronoun and this "IT" refers to nothing - which is definitely acceptabe on the GMAT

Thus in terms of pronoun ambiguity in option D - there is none because the "IT" is referring to nothing (i.e. the "IT" is a dummy pronoun)

Thus i cannot eliminate D because of pronoun ambigity because the "IT" is a dummy pronoun, not referring to anything

Thoughts on where I maybe thinking wrong ?

jabhatta2 · Answer

IanStewart  - Isnt the OA : C wrong because of the meaning "For" - the usage of "For" clearly is not correct in the context of comparisons in option C

Do we really say something like this for example ?

option C analogy)  In 2000  I owned 10 cars, double the number of cars  for 2021

'For 2021' in my view cannot be used because 'for 2021' gives the impression I have 5 cars "For 2021" - almost like "for 2021" is a person for whom I have 5 cars.

To avoid this ambiguity

I think, one would instead say

option C analogy)  In 2000  I owned 10 cars, double the number of cars   for   in  2021

GMATGuruNY · Answer

The referent for a pronoun must appear within the sentence itself.
 In 2003 there were 198,113 female science and engineering graduate students, almost 42% of the graduate students in those fields, double what it was in 1981. 
Here,  number  does not appear in the sentence and thus cannot serve as a referent for  it .
Option D lacks an eligible singular referent for  it .
As a result, the sentence does not convey a clear meaning.
Eliminate D.

1n 1980, ten thousand students competed, twice as many as in 1970. 
Implied comparison:
  1n 1980 , ten thousand students competed, twice as many as    in 1970 . 
Here, the verb in brackets is omitted but implied.
As a result, the two prepositional phrases in green have the SAME FUNCTION: each is an ADVERB serving to modify  competed .
Since the sentence is comparing how students competed   IN 1980   to how students competed   IN 1970  , it is not possible to omit the usage of IN before  1970 .

OA:  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  .
Here, no verb is implied within the green portion.
Whereas  in 2003  is an ADVERB modifying  were ,  for 1981  is an ADJECTIVE modifying  the figure .
Since the two prepositional phrases have DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS, there is no need for parallelism.

GMATGuruNY · Answer

Even when  it  serves on the GMAT as an EXPLETIVE -- or in your words, as a "dummy pronoun" -- the referent for  it  must be crystal clear.

Official examples:

It was only after Katharine Graham became publisher of The Washington Post in 1963 that it moved into the first rank of American newspapers. 
Here, the referent for  it  is the following that-clause.
Conveyed meaning:
 That it moved into the first rank of American newspapers was only after Katharine Graham became publisher.

It was under her command that the paper won high praise. 
Here, the referent for  it  is the following that-clause.
Conveyed meaning:
 That the paper won high praise was under her command.

It is unclear whether chimpanzees are unique among nonhuman species, or whether other animals would exhibit similar patterns if they were studied in as much depth. 
Here, the referent for  it  is the following whether-construction.
Conveyed meaning:
 Whether chimpanzees are unique among human species, or whether other animals would exhibit similar patterns, is unclear.

It is possible that, like the Volkswagen, whose unchanging exterior over decades concealed many changes in its internal machinery, many prehistoric microbes evolved without significant modification of their sheaths. 
Here, the referent for  it  is the following that-clause.
Conveyed meaning:
 That many prehistoric microbes evolved without significant modification is possible.

As mentioned in my earlier post, option D does not provide en eligible referent for  it .

IanStewart · Answer

As AjiteshArun points above, the question is essentially copied from an official one, so the OA really must be right (though the official question is less awkward and is better written).

I've honestly never thought about this until just now, and maybe someone else has and can give you a more precise answer, but it's true that preposition choices often boil down to idiom. It seems to me that when it comes specifically to figures, statistics and other data compiled annually, it is common to use "for" in the way this sentence does. "The employment figures for 2020 were encouraging," for example, is a perfectly good sentence, and "for" is more idiomatic here than any other preposition, though "in" would be fine too. "Can you get me the corporate report for 1983" is another perfectly good sentence, and here "in" is clearly unacceptable (then the sentence would be asking the person to deliver the report some time in 1983, which makes no sense), and "from 1983" would probably be fine too, but would potentially convey a slightly different meaning. If we talk about the "report from 1983", that means the report itself was from 1983 (but might talk about 1977 for all we know). If we talk about the report "for 1983", that means the report covers the year 1983 (but might have been written in 1985 say), which is what this sentence I invented presumably intends.

When you change the annual figure in the original sentence to a number of cars someone owns, then we're no longer talking about data compiled annually, and in your sentence the preposition "for" would definitely be wrong. The cars aren't a statistic or report or piece of data covering a year, which is what the "for" conveys; they're just cars.

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Hello  jabhatta2 ,

We hope this finds you well.

Having gone through the question and your query, we believe we can help resolve your doubt.

As  IanStewart  has written, the use of prepositions in such cases often comes down to idiomatic rules. The use of "for" is incorrect in your sentence because it refers to the "cars", which cannot logically be "for" a period of time. However, the use of "for" is correct in the given question, as Option C refers to "the figure", which can be "for" a period of time, conveying that the figure is information that pertains to that time period.

We hope this helps. 
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

KARISHMA315 · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja   KevinRocci  - Does it mean that figure cannot refer back to percentage. My confusion is why "it" is ambiguous and "figure" is not . Many thanks!

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

Hello expert,
I was confused which one “figure” refers to? 198,113 or 42%? 
Is it ambitious? Need your views. Much thanks.

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Hello  Mavisdu1017 ,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, here, "198,113" and "42%" both actually refer to the same thing; "almost 42% of the graduate students in those fields" is a modifier acting on "198,113 female science and engineering graduate students".

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

Rickooreo · Answer

I have gone through the post and understood the solution well. Had a couple of doubts
1. Is there any difference in the usage of "double" vs "twice" 
2. For option C shouldn't it be double the figure "of" (not for) 1981??

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Hello  Rickooreo ,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your queries,

1. No; there is no difference in the usage of "double" and "twice" in this case.

2. Both "of" and "for" are idiomatically acceptable prepositions in this context.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

akt715 · Answer

Is it okay to eliminate first two options because twice is an adverb, so it cannot be used for modifying a noun?

zeus_bull · Answer

Hey  GMATNinja

1) why wouldn't just  1981   be needed in that case?
2) if what you've written in brackets is correct (and I myself believe it is), why do we use "a friend of mine" or "a fan of yours"? Getting confused here...don't these constructions have the same problem of redundancy (both  of   and possessive)

GMATNinja · Answer

Yeah, something like "a friend of Tim's" is one of those exceptions that's become acceptable because it's so commonly used in everyday speech. You're extremely unlikely to encounter something like that on the GMAT, though.

As explained in  this post , something like "the Sun has the same apparent size in the sky as the   Moon's  " is problematic because it makes the meaning unclear. Does the Sun have the same apparent size as the Moon's   size  ? Or does the Sun have the same apparent size as the Moon  itself ?

The latter makes more sense, since the Moon's  size  doesn't have a size. The Moon  itself  has a size. But the possessive suggests the former interpretation, and that's confusing at best, illogical at worst.

Remember, GMAT SC isn't about compiling a list of ironclad grammar rules that you can mindlessly apply to future questions -- it's about comparing the five options in front of you and picking the one that creates the clearest sentence.

I hope that helps!

MissionAdmit · Answer

Hi. I was confused between C and E .

Read E as - a number double that of 1981's "number"

Why is this wrong?

miko2010 · Answer

hey, can someone please explain thy the use of "for" is good in option C ?

According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards