GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 24 Sep 2018, 10:33

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

According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 217
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V36
GPA: 3.54
CAT Tests
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Oct 2017, 03:31
abhimahna wrote:
HappyQuakka wrote:
hazelnut abhimahna

I go this question right, but I thought the 'figure' in the last part of the question stem was referring to the percentage of female grad students, not the number.

1. Is that interpretation wrong
2. is C still the correct answer even with my interpretation?

Thx!


Hi HappyQuakka ,

Actually NO. The figure is referring to the count rather than the %.

It is actually wrong to say double the % for another year.

As per the meaning of the sentence, we are comparing the females in one year with females in another. We are not comparing the % of graduates in one year with % of graduates in another year.

You might have got C as the right answer with POE because all others are wrong. (This is my assumption.)

Does that make sense?


Hi Abhimahna,
Please help me to understand the error in B. I thought an additional in is understood in B, and so the sentence stands out as
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 many as (in) 1981.
Board of Directors
User avatar
V
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3672
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Oct 2017, 05:03
sunny91 wrote:
Hi Abhimahna,
Please help me to understand the error in B. I thought an additional in is understood in B, and so the sentence stands out as
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 many as (in) 1981.


Hi sunny91 ,

Here I go.

The biggest problem with B is we are comparing the number with the year. This is not allowed.

Now, let me talk about ellipsis. You are saying what is you add "in".

Consider the two scenarios:

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 many as (in) 1981. --> Shouldn't this be "number in"? Ellipsis rule says you can omit number and that would imply internally rather than omitting the prepositions such as "in" itself.

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 many as [number]in 1981. --> Okay, the now your rule works. Now, I can say I am comparing the numbers and I don't need to explicitly mention them.

Does that make sense?
_________________

My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place
Blog: Subscribe to Question of the Day Blog

GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.

New! Best Reply Functionality on GMAT Club!



Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 217
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V36
GPA: 3.54
CAT Tests
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Oct 2017, 06:11
abhimahna wrote:
sunny91 wrote:
Hi Abhimahna,
Please help me to understand the error in B. I thought an additional in is understood in B, and so the sentence stands out as
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 many as (in) 1981.


Hi sunny91 ,

Here I go.

The biggest problem with B is we are comparing the number with the year. This is not allowed.

Now, let me talk about ellipsis. You are saying what is you add "in".

Consider the two scenarios:

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 many as (in) 1981. --> Shouldn't this be "number in"? Ellipsis rule says you can omit number and that would imply internally rather than omitting the prepositions such as "in" itself.

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 many as [number]in 1981. --> Okay, the now your rule works. Now, I can say I am comparing the numbers and I don't need to explicitly mention them.

Does that make sense?



Thanks Abhimahna.
Now I understood we can't take preposition as implied.
Example- I have 4 shirts, twice as many as (the number) you have. Here,the number is implied. Also, I went through your debrief and it looks very inspirational.
SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1789
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Mar 2018, 11:23
I still get confusing here, C should be correct. However, in a similar question, D is the answer.
So, my question is, when "double what it was" is correct?
Intern
Intern
avatar
S
Joined: 05 Apr 2016
Posts: 28
Location: India
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V34
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Mar 2018, 12:12
chesstitans wrote:
I still get confusing here, C should be correct. However, in a similar question, D is the answer.
So, my question is, when "double what it was" is correct?



When it has a clear antecedent.
Eg: My TSH now is 12, double what it was in last summer.
Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 26 Aug 2016
Posts: 662
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q50 V33
GMAT 3: 730 Q51 V38
GPA: 4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Apr 2018, 00:13
Dear abhimahna , GMATNinja , daagh,
Can you please justify the using of "for" after figure rather than using of "in". Please enlighten me. I feel a bit awkward because of that word "for", rendering me to roll down all options.

Thank you
Board of Directors
User avatar
V
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3672
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Apr 2018, 03:30
1
Nightmare007 wrote:
Dear abhimahna , GMATNinja , daagh,
Can you please justify the using of "for" after figure rather than using of "in". Please enlighten me. I feel a bit awkward because of that word "for", rendering me to roll down all options.

Thank you


Hey Nightmare007 ,

I am happy to help.

First of all, please note that AWKWARDNESS is NEVER a reason to reject any option. I have emphasized this alot many times. Please take this word out of your dictionary. :)

Now, I would not bother much about figure for vs figure in when I know why the other 4 options are incorrect.

Does that make sense?
_________________

My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place
Blog: Subscribe to Question of the Day Blog

GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.

New! Best Reply Functionality on GMAT Club!



Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free

Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 26 Aug 2016
Posts: 662
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q50 V33
GMAT 3: 730 Q51 V38
GPA: 4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Apr 2018, 05:28
abhimahna wrote:
Nightmare007 wrote:
Dear abhimahna , GMATNinja , daagh,
Can you please justify the using of "for" after figure rather than using of "in". Please enlighten me. I feel a bit awkward because of that word "for", rendering me to roll down all options.

Thank you


Hey Nightmare007 ,

I am happy to help.

First of all, please note that AWKWARDNESS is NEVER a reason to reject any option. I have emphasized this alot many times. Please take this word out of your dictionary. :)

Now, I would not bother much about figure for vs figure in when I know why the other 4 options are incorrect.

Does that make sense?


So we can use figure + for here. :)
Thank you
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Jun 2015
Posts: 79
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Leadership
Schools: LBS '21
GMAT 1: 620 Q46 V33
CAT Tests
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 May 2018, 11:24
I really dont think this question has been answered clearly . Here is my interpretation of the correct answer :

According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were 198- No of Females ,113 female science and engineering graduate students, almost 42% of the graduate students in those fields, twice as much as 1981.

Here we are comparing the no of Females in 2003 with the no of females in 1981. Lets try POE

(A) twice as much as 1981- Since you are comparing 2 numbers (Countable )you cannot use much (Un-countable )

(B) twice as many as 1981- Here you are comparing the no of females to year 1981 which is wrong comparison

(C) double the figure for 1981 - Double which means 2 times the figure (No of females ) for 1981 - Lets keep this one

(D) double what it was in 1981 - What does it refer to ? The No of females / the percentage of females ?

(E) a number double that of 1981’s - Usage of 'THAT OF' makes the usage of "1981's" (possessive) redundant. The usage of either "DOUBLE 1981's" or "DOUBLE THAT OF 1981" would be correct.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 21 Feb 2018
Posts: 16
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 May 2018, 00:08
Hi,
I have my doubts whether it is indeed the number of female candidates being compared or it is the percentage being compared.
For one, the number of female candidates is odd. Therefore, it can't be double of any number. When numbers are being compared, does the comparison allow for approximations? The percentage is 42% which can be double of 21% of all graduates in 1981. When we are comparing percentages, what rules should be followed?
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 14
GMAT ToolKit User
According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 14 Aug 2018, 01:08
slayer1983 wrote:
Hi,
I have my doubts whether it is indeed the number of female candidates being compared or it is the percentage being compared.
For one, the number of female candidates is odd. Therefore, it can't be double of any number. When numbers are being compared, does the comparison allow for approximations? The percentage is 42% which can be double of 21% of all graduates in 1981. When we are comparing percentages, what rules should be followed?


I am on the same boat. To add to all this, the comparison clause is preceded immediately by the percentage figure not the student count figure. Thus, I thought we were comparing the percentages not the number of female candidates.

Why does it HAVE to be the number of female candidates and not percentage here?

It wasn't a choice but if "twice as much as in 1981" was an option, I would definitely pick that.

Originally posted by ssk13809 on 14 Aug 2018, 01:06.
Last edited by ssk13809 on 14 Aug 2018, 01:08, edited 1 time in total.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 14
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2018, 01:07
abhimahna wrote:
HappyQuakka wrote:
hazelnut abhimahna

I go this question right, but I thought the 'figure' in the last part of the question stem was referring to the percentage of female grad students, not the number.

1. Is that interpretation wrong
2. is C still the correct answer even with my interpretation?

Thx!


Hi HappyQuakka ,

Actually NO. The figure is referring to the count rather than the %.

It is actually wrong to say double the % for another year.

As per the meaning of the sentence, we are comparing the females in one year with females in another. We are not comparing the % of graduates in one year with % of graduates in another year.

You might have got C as the right answer with POE because all others are wrong. (This is my assumption.)

Does that make sense?



Why does it have to be the count rather than the %? See the 2 posts above...
GMAT Club Bot
Re: According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were &nbs [#permalink] 14 Aug 2018, 01:07

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 32 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.