Although the initial setup of generators and a power grid by Edison an

None of the options seem correct here..

1) "cut in half" is wrong --> should be "cut to half" - better - or "cut by half" - best.

Bread loaf was cut in half. No one says energy costs were cut in half. C and E sound best of the lot,but they have issues as well.

Can't you say "He cut the bread loaf in half"? Similarly, they cut the energy cost(s) in half. I prefer by half too, but B was the best option to me and I was not able to find anything 100% incorrect

Cut X in half is same as "reduce X by 50 %"

Could you explain where you see the parallelism in the two forms ? egmat , could you shed some light on this ?

to cut X in half​ is to reduce X by 50%. 
Thus, it is idiomatically correct to say ​

'while cutting energy costs in half' 

to mean

'while reducing energy costs by 50%.'

From the above C and E are out.
moreover .. In E costs is ambiguous... We are unable to determine which costs were cut in half. That rules out E.

Coming to the rest of the choices...

Lighting electrification sounds as if it lighting evolved by itself. Not possible. Hence D is ruled out.
Problem with A is the word 'when'. We have to contrast 'doubling of work efficiency 'against 'reduction in energy costs'. Correct word that should be used is 'While'.

Hence the clear winner is 'B'

MANHATTAN REVIEW OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Choice C has an incorrect idiom: while as. Choices A, C, D & E have passive constructions in the last part of the options. A also unnecessarily has ‘the’ before ‘energy costs’. E eliminates ‘energy’. This word is needed or the meaning of the sentence would be altered. Choice B is the correct answer.

Hello daagh sir,
Needed help to understand this question. Here the OA is B. But per my understanding the clause appearing after "while" should be IC, that is not happening here.

Regards,
Tamal

Posted from my mobile device

GMATNinja

Request your expert opinion in this, the difference in cut to half and cut in half?

How much difference does it make

Posted from my mobile device

Shef08

There is a difference between "cut in half" and "cut to half," but it makes zero difference here, since no answer but B correctly says "doubled . . . while cutting."

The (rather subtle) difference is that when we cut something in half, we reduce it to half of its previous value. If we cut it *to* half, we reduce it until it is half of SOMETHING, not necessarily its current value. For instance, I might cut my work hours to "half of the national average," rather than to half of what I was working before.

I should also add that this question is not one of ours! It's from Manhattan Review. We get that a lot . . .

the electrification of lighting: how you will electrify lightening, Seems awkward.

or lighting electrification- Lighting is type of electrification

Please elaborate these two terms.

Hi all,

Can someone help me to understand why in option (B) "while" is not followed by a clause.

"(B) the electrification of lighting in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency while cutting energy costs in half"

when and while conjunctions can be used without a subject and verb with -ing or -ed forms.


check out the following links :-

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/conjunctions-time#conjunctions-time__72

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/as-when-or-while

Hi KarishmaB

I have learnt that "while" is followed by a clause. And choice B misses the clause. Hence, I marked it incorrect.

Please shed some light.

"While" is a subordinate conjunction and gives adverbial clauses. It shows simultaneous action and uses progressive.
A happened while B was happening.

When both, the main clause and the subordinate clause, have the same subject, we can skip the mention of the subject and the be verb in the while clause.

...the electrification ... doubled work efficiency while cutting energy costs in half.

Both doubling and cutting was done by "electrification" so we don't need to use it again.

So (B) is correct.

"while" without progressive is often used to give contrasting ideas.

"While I am happy for you, I cannot join you."

Since there is no contrast here between "doubling and cutting", I will prefer (B) which uses progressive over other options.

my doubt is in option c ,,,, why option c is incorrect ??? according to me--> meaning is clear plus it was the cost that was cut to half ...

Hi! couple of issues with C:

i) "costs were cut to half" does not explicitly mention (nor is it implied) whose costs were cut to half. The correct answer makes it clear that the costs of "energy" were cut in half.

ii) "costs were cut to half" also does not tell us "who/what" was the agent of the action; in other words, C does not tell us who/what was responsible for cutting the costs to half. The correct answer makes it clear that "electrification of lighting" was responsible for cutting the costs to half. C uses passive voice and this is a typical issue with passive voice construct: the doer of the action is concealed. This post addresses this in detail.

Hello kakakakaak,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, Option C is an inferior answer choice, as its passive construction makes it needlessly wordy and unclear.

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