For the first time in the modern era, non-Hispanic Whites are official

Dear Friends,

Here is a detailed explanation to this question-

Meaning is crucial to solving this problem:
Understanding the intended meaning is key to solving this question; the intended core meaning of this sentence is that non-Hispanic Whites are officially a minority in California, because they amount to a little less than half the population of the state, and a decade ago, they were nearly three-quarters of the population.

Concepts tested here: Meaning + Modifiers + Verb Forms + Pronouns + Comparison

• The introduction of present participle ("verb+ing"- “amounting” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship.
• "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refers to the noun just before the comma.
• A comparison must always be made between similar elements.

A: This answer choice incorrectly refers to "California" with "which amounts...state", illogically implying that California amounts to a little less than half the population of the state; the intended meaning is that non-Hispanic Whites amount to a little less than half the population of the state; please remember, "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma.

B: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the plural noun "non-Hispanic Whites" with the singular pronoun "it". Further, Option B incorrectly refers to "California" with "which amounts...state", illogically implying that California amounts to a little less than half the population of the state; the intended meaning is that non-Hispanic Whites amount to a little less than half the population of the state; please remember, "who/whose/whom/which/where", when preceded by a comma, refer to the noun just before the comma. Additionally, Option B incorrectly compares "a little less than half the population of the state" to "a decade ago"; please remember, a comparison must always be made between similar elements.

C: This answer choice suffers from pronoun ambiguity, as the pronoun "that" lacks a clear referent. Further, Option C incorrectly compares "a little less than half the population of the state" to "a decade ago"; please remember, a comparison must always be made between similar elements.

D: Correct. This answer choice avoids the pronoun errors seen in Options B, C, and E, as it uses no pronouns. Further, Option D uses the phrase "amounting to a little less than half the population of the state"; the use of the "comma + present participle ("verb+ing" - "amounting" in this sentence)" construction correctly implies that non-Hispanic Whites are officially a minority in California, because they amount to a little less than half the population of the state; remember, the introduction of the present participle ("verb+ing"- “amounting” in this case) after comma generally leads to a cause-effect relationship. Moreover, Option D uses the phrase "down from nearly three-quarters a decade ago", conveying the intended meaning - that a decade ago non-Hispanic Whites made up a total of three-quarters of the population of the state. Additionally, Option D correctly compares "a little less than half the population of the state" with "nearly three-quarters".

E: This answer choice incorrectly refers to the plural noun "non-Hispanic Whites" with the singular pronoun "it". Further, Option E alters the meaning of the sentence through the phrase "down from what it was a decade ago by nearly three-quarters"; the construction of this phrase incorrectly implies that a decade ago non-Hispanic Whites made up three-quarters more of the population of the state than they currently do; the intended meaning is that a decade ago non-Hispanic Whites made up a total of three-quarters of the population of the state.

Hence, D is the best answer choice.

To understand the concept of "Comma + Present Participle for Cause-Effect Relationship" on GMAT, you may want to watch the following video (~3 minutes):



All the best!
Experts' Global Team

A and b are wrong because a comma before which indiacates it is referring to the antecedent which is california here whereas not referring to the non-hispanic whites so teh usage of which is wrong here.D on the other hand,is precise and to the point.

Hi ,

You are right. Moreover, 'amounting to ', 'down from', 'by nearly three...' does not seem to be in synch. I mean no proper meaning is conveyed. A, B and C are incorrect for obvious reasons mentioned above. Clearly D. What is the OA for this?

Regards
Sony

[quote="WaterFlowsUp"]what is the difference between [b]this amounts and amounting to[/b] ?[/quote]

AMMOUNTS TO:==>Here amounts is acting as a verb....and ammounts to means SUMS TO

AMMOUNTING]:==>THIS IS A PARTICIPLE. and ammounting to means summing to..

both have almost the same meaning only difference is one is acting as a verb and other as a participle.

hope it helps

in A and B - which refers back to california which is wrong.
in C that makes the sentence unclear and wordy
in E the addition of It has no clear referent (population or state)
thus D IMO is the right choice

Can anyone explain why THAT in option C makes the choice incorrect?

that or which cannot refer to living things and in this case 'non-Hispanic Whites '

Hi,
i would request you to check the question and its source and please share with us so that we all too can benefit ..
But merely seeing without the source may harm others than help them..
whatever little bit i have read about GMAT, that cannot refer to a person.. you use who for a person

Hi Soumya, that in C is used as demonstrative pronoun, in the sense that that is actually pointing to the fact that non-Hispanic Whites are officially a minority in California.

While there is meaning issue with this usage, the easier way to eliminate this is that whenever that is used as a demonstrative pronoun, that must be immediately followed by a noun; so basically that should be used as an adjective. In option C, that is not followed by a noun and hence, can be eliminated easily.

For example, following hypothetical sentence (non-GMAT like) is better:

Recently a survey found that non-Hispanic Whites are officially a minority in California, and that survey was made public.

Here, that is followed by a noun: survey.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses the various avatars of "that", their application and examples in significant detail. If someone is interested, PM me your email-id, I can mail the corresponding section.

Yes indeed this could be another interpretation.

Adding to what Chetan mentions, even if we interpret it this way (that referring to non-Hispanic Whites), C would still be incorrect because of subject-verb agreement issues, since C says: ...and that amounts to.

So, if that is referring to non-Hispanic Whites, the sentence would be: ...and non-Hispanic Whites amounts to.

Since non-Hispanic Whites is clearly plural, we cannot use a singular verb amounts.

Hi Egmat,

Meaning analysis: the sentence says that the population of non hispanic whites is a little less than 50% population and this current population was 75% a decade back.

Error analysis:

Can you please clarify the below doubts:

1. Since relative pronouns can modify a far away noun. Isn't it possible for which to modify minority in the parent sentence.
2. What does the phrase down from nearly three quarters modifies.

Also, if you could do a complete analysis of other answer choices post clearing my doubts.

Hi Nishat,

Thanks for posting your doubt here.

1. In Choice A and B, which cannot refer jump over in California to modify a minority because in California actually modifies the verb are. We can very well place this modifier right before the subject of the main clause, and the sentence will still give the intended meaning. Hence, the far away noun modification does not work in these two choices.

2. The phrase down from nearly three-quarters a decade ago, another prepositional phrase modifies the noun entity a little less than half the population of the state. It is the current population that is down.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

Please confirm if my analysis of other options is correct:
a and b. As you mentioned because A and B have which and it modifies California therefore it is incorrect. Also, in B the phrase down from a decade ago changes the meaning hence incorrect.
c. 2 errors. It removes the causality and places them as 2 diffrent clauses giving equal weightage. Also, similarly the phrase down from a decade ago changes the meaning
e. down from what it was a decade ago by nearly three-quarters. Here it has no antecedent. This is wordy and unclear.

Please confirm if I am right.

Hi Nishat,

Yes, for most part, your analysis is correct. In choice C, usage of that is incorrect as that cannot refer to a clause. So I would not say that this choice removes the causality. I would say that this choice presents the causality in an ungrammatical manner.

Hope this helps.
Thanks.
Shraddha

For the first time in the modern era, non-Hispanic Whites are officially a minority in California, which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly there-quarters only a decade ago.

A. which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly three-quarters only a decade ago ----->ILLOGICALLY describing California
B. which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from a decade ago, when it was nearly three-quarters ------->Same as A,ILLOGICALLY describing California
C. and that amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from a decade ago, when they were nearly three-quarters ------>Parellel error,INCORRECT
D. amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly three-quarters a decade ago ---->CORRECT,"A little less than half" is compared to "nearly three-quarters".
E. amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from what it was a decade ago by nearly three-quarters
------> meaning error,"it" can modify either the subject of the sentence or a noun that's closer

[quote="mymba99"]For the first time in the modern era, non-Hispanic Whites are officially a minority in California, which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly there-quarters only a decade ago.


(A) which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly three-quarters only a decade ago

(B) which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from a decade ago, when it was nearly three-quarters

(C) and that amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from a decade ago, when they were nearly three-quarters

(D) amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly three-quarters a decade ago

(E) amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from what it was a decade ago by nearly three-quarter

why choice a wrong is hard to know. thank veritas expert

non defining relative clause (comma+which/who) normally go with definite noun . if it gose with indefinite noun, which is after "a", we should take a caution because in this case, any noun in a goup has the characteristics shown by which clause.

Mr. Ron, who is gmat winner , help us a lot

this sentence means mr. Ron, who, of course, is a gmat winner, helps us a lot. this is logic

a student in the gmat class, who is gmat winner, helps us a lot

this sentence is likely to be wrong because this sentence means any student in the class is a gmat winner.

a student in the class of Havard, who is gmat winner, helps us a lot
this sentence is likely to be correct because to get into havard, the students there normally gmat winner

THE student in our gmat class, who is gmat winner, helps us a lot
this sentence is likely gmat. notice "the", which is an indicator of definite noun.

non defining relative clause gives more information to a noun but is not used to define the noun, So, normally, this clause should go with DEFINITE NOUN to be in logics.

to understand the meaning of non defining clause, I add "of course" to which clause.

it takes me 2 hours to write this thing.

if you are happy, give me a kudos