Between 1990 and 2000 the global economy grew more than it did during

Short note on A vs B, from Ron's (MGMAT) post.

"That " usage in comparison:

constructions using 'that of' (or other preposition after 'that') must have EXACTLY parallel structures. in other words, if the second half says 'that during 10,000 years', then the preceding half must say 'the growth of ___ during something else' (or some other time preposition, such as before or after, in place of during).

Hi,

Thanks for teaching so much in a single question.

I went through Thursdays with Ron and now I am confused again.

In B) you mention: "The seat of chair A is more worn than it was last week.".

Can we say "The seat of chair A is more worn [now] than last week." or ""The seat of chair A is more worn [now] than it was worn last week." are more GMAT like constructions. I guess I missed the point somewhere.

Link: (25min-27min)

Hi Rohit, we cannot say:

The seat of chair A is more worn than last week.

The point really is that RHS of the comparison trigger (in this case than) has last week (an indicator of time), while the LHS does not have any explicit indicator of time. Hence, the comparison is not between similar things here.

A similar incorrect sentence from GMATPrep:

To develop more accurate population forecasts, demographers have to know a great deal more than now about the social and economic determinants of fertility.

In fact, in Sentence Correction Nirvana, I would suggest you to go through the comparisons chapter thoroughly, where we have covered the entire Comparison Operator Decision Tree. Specifically, towards the bottom of Page 187, we discuss in detail why the following sentence (based upon the GMATPrep question above) is incorrect:

To develop artificial intelligence in robots, researchers would have to know a great deal more than now about highly efficient problem solving algorithms.


This one is correct, because we now are comparing clauses on either side of the comparison operator than.

Both the factors under comparison relate to something in the past. There is no place for a present tense verb ‘exceeds’ in this question. Let us dump C and D.
In E, the growth is said to do something for some 10000 years. The growth is not a factor that can do something. It can be what it is, but not be the doer of something
Left with A and B:
B: --- more than that during 10,000 years, from when agriculture began --- 'When' refers to a specific point of time. Can we attribute ‘when’ to a particular time during the 10000 years? Secondly, symmetrical parallelism is a big casualty in this choice.

So, A because of good parallelism and for avoiding the dubious 'when'

Hi mikemcgarry,

Happy thanksgiving.

A quick question regarding B. I understand the issue you mentioned with grow and growth [i. e. VERB vs NOUN issue]; I discarded B and opted for A for another reason, and that is - "from when" in B

Is "from when" a correct structure to refer to a time period?

Regards
RzS

Dear TheRzS,

I'm happy to respond.

The short answer is yes.

One of the uses of "when" is to introduce a substantive clause, a clause that acts as a noun. Any substantive clause can be the object of any preposition.

There are other arrangements in which a "when" clause would follow "from," but that case is the most common.

Does this make sense?
Mike

Between 1990 and 2000 the global economy grew more than it did during the 10,000 years from the beginning of agriculture to 1950.

(A) Between 1990 and 2000 the global economy grew more than it did during the 10,000 years from the beginning of agriculture
(B) Between 1990 and 2000 the growth of the global economy was more than that during 10,000 years, from when agriculture began
(C) The growth of the global economy between 1990 and 2000 exceeds that which had been for 10,000 years from the beginning of agriculture
(D) The growth of the global economy between 1990 and 2000 exceeds what it has been for 10,000 years, from when agriculture began
(E) The growth of the global economy between 1990 and 2000 exceeded what it did for the 10,000 years from the beginning of agriculture


Dear mikemcgarry, MagooshExpert Carolyn, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja,
thanks in advance for reading my post,
indeed, I need your help to dispel my confusions

Q1:since growth is a number, i wonder whether the following are logical?
growth 1 exceeds growth 2
growth 1 is greater than growth 2
growth rate 1 exceeds growth rate 2
growth rate 1 is faster than growth rate 2

Q2: pronoun
#1
D) & E)both "it" refer to "the growth of the golbal economy between 1990 and 2000", rather than "the gowth of global economy", because the "between 1990 and 2000" is essential modifier of the growth of the global economy,
Right ?

based on reference above, I think the second half of the sentence is illogial because the 10 - year growth ( from 1990 t0 2000 )is impossible to grow for 10,000 years.

#2
B) " that "refers to growth of the global economy,
i view "that" as "NEW COPY", the another "growth of the global economy" but not the same as the one between 1990 and 2000.
In other word, i think the first half is correct,
but the second half is incorrect (from ... to... is a mark of parallelism, the error is a clause parallels to a noun)
C) " that "refers to the growth of the global economy.
similary, I thougt "that" is correct, but i am not sure the parts after "that".
if "that" is a "NEW COPY", then which clause modifies "that", but i barely encounterd sentense that which clause follows "that" without comma,


Q3: what it has been for 10,000 years in D, what it did for the 10,000 years in E

these play noun role, like
what I know is not the truth.
So the comparison is ok because noun 1 compares with noun 2
while, I read some replies explian the comparison is incorrect because noun cannot compare with clause.

Q4:: tense
I understand A is correct,
i picked up C because "had been for10,000 years ", I though "for 10,000 years" is a continous period and the growth happened during the period, and the "1950" is a past end, which means the growth began before a past time, so i think "had been for 10,000" is correct.
I know i must be wrong, but please point out where.


Genuienly need your help

Have a nice day
>_~

Hi zoezhuyan, I believe this is where the confusion is. We need to understand the difference between the following sentences:

(i) India was a British colony from 1747 to 1947.
- This sentence is appropriately expressed in simple past because the sentence is just referring to an event of the past (India being a British colony)

(ii) By 1947, India had been a British colony for 200 years.
- This sentence is appropriately expressed in past perfect because in this sentence, we are specifically talking about two things:
(a) A specific time in the past (1947)
(b) The turn of events before 1947
Hence, this sentence is appropriately expressed in past perfect.

The current question just talks about an event of the past and hence, the sentence needs to be in simple past.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses a specific example where the usage of time mandatesusage of Past Perfect. Have attached the corresponding section of the book, for your reference.

Hi EducationAisle,

thanks for your reply.
Would you please clarify further?
I did not get the differenct from your examples and the GMAT Prep question.

My interpretation of your example ii)
By 1947, India had been a British colony for 200 years.
(a) the time period is 1747 - 1947, which an action ended in 1947, a past time , and began eailier than 1947
(b) during the time, India had been a British colony. but after 1947, India was no longer a British colony.

The GMAT Prep question
(a) the time period is sometime much earlier than 1950 -- 1950, it is similar to your time period
(b), during the time, the global economy had grown,

I am not sure the difference

regard your attachment, what i got is
1) the "perfect past" does not necessary mean earlier action, in the attachment, the earlier action is spent 4 hours, a simple tense, while the later action is had spent 8 hours, the perfect past tense.

please help

Thanks in advance

Have a nice day
>_~

Hi zoezhuyan, if this confuses you, for GMAT purposes, you might just want to remember that whenever the sentence uses structure such as From X to Y, In X, and Between X and Y (where X and Y represent time), then we should use Simple Past.

Woud you please elobrate when should i use perfect past?

Thanks in advance

Have a nice day
>_~

Hi zoezhuyan, past perfect is used to depict the following scenarios:

i) An event that happened at some point “before” another event in the past

ii) An extended event that continued until another event happened in the past

In the above scenarios another event can also be a specific time (this was the case that was confusing you earlier ).

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses Past perfect tense, its application and examples in significant detail. If someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.

Hi EducationAisle,
thanks for your explanation,
Honestly speaking, The scenario ii) -- Highlight parts-- still confuses me alot, LOL

Would your please confirm the following :
Q1:since growth is a number, i wonder whether the following are logical?
growth 1 exceeds growth 2
growth 1 is greater than growth 2
growth rate 1 exceeds growth rate 2
growth rate 1 is faster than growth rate 2

Q2: pronoun
#1
D) & E)both "it" refer to "the growth of the golbal economy between 1990 and 2000", rather than "the gowth of global economy", because the "between 1990 and 2000" is essential modifier of the growth of the global economy,
Right ?

based on reference above, I think the second half of the sentence is illogial because the 10 - year growth ( from 1990 t0 2000 )is impossible to grow for 10,000 years.

#2
B) " that "refers to growth of the global economy,
i view "that" as "NEW COPY", the another "growth of the global economy" but not the same as the one between 1990 and 2000.
In other word, i think the first half is correct,
but the second half is incorrect (from ... to... is a mark of parallelism, the error is a clause parallels to a noun)
C) " that "refers to the growth of the global economy.
similary, I thougt "that" is correct, but i am not sure the parts after "that".
if "that" is a "NEW COPY", then which clause modifies "that", but i barely encounterd sentense that which clause follows "that" without comma,


Q3: what it has been for 10,000 years in D, what it did for the 10,000 years in E

these play noun role, like
what I know is not the truth.
So the comparison is ok because noun 1 compares with noun 2
while, I read some replies explian the comparison is incorrect because noun cannot compare with clause.

Thanks a ton

Have a nice day
>_~

Hi! Am pretty sure this will not be correct:

growth rate 1 is faster than growth rate 2

The reason is that in the above sentence, growth is just used as adjective. So, it is basically saying that rate 1 is faster than rate 2.

But this is invalid, for the same reason that depth cannot be deeper and length cannot be longer.

PRONOUNS AND CORRELATIVES

Here's my explanation of this legendary exercise.







Best,


Rod

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
In option B
B) Between 1990 and 2000 the growth of the global economy was more than that during 10,000 years, from when agriculture began
Does the use of comma before a preposition is common or wrong ?

We usually do not use a comma before prepositions. In option (B), we have a relative clause beginning with a preposition. Though the clause is essential so you will still not use a comma.