Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1811:00 AM PST
-12:00 PM PST
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 30 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
14 Jul 2022, 08:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
55% (01:22) correct
45%
(01:30)
wrong
based on 317
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Throughout the last decade, the cost of caring for children with food allergies increased, with families now spending an estimate of $25 billion per year.
(A) caring for children with food allergies increased, with families now spending an estimate of
(B) providing care for children with food allergies has increased, with families now collectively spending an estimated
(C) caring for children with food allergies increased, families having spent an estimated
(D) providing care for children with food allergies has increased, with families now spending a collective estimate of
(E) providing care for children with food allergies increased, with the result that families spent an estimated
(A) caring for children with food allergies increased, with families now spending an estimate of
(B) providing care for children with food allergies has increased, with families now collectively spending an estimated
(C) caring for children with food allergies increased, families having spent an estimated
(D) providing care for children with food allergies has increased, with families now spending a collective estimate of
(E) providing care for children with food allergies increased, with the result that families spent an estimated
|
14 Jul 2022, 09:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
Quote:
Welcome to the world of meaning. If you are not careful here to consider the sentence as a whole, you can quickly drive yourself mad.
Split #1: caring for children versus providing care for children
Caring for is a tricky expression in this context. It can on its own be taken to mean providing care for, but it can just as easily be interpreted as having feelings for or showing concern for. Of course, it would not cost anything to show concern for children. The safer option is the latter, although I would not be quick to make any eliminations just yet.
Split #2: increased versus has increased
Be careful not to run on autopilot. Your knee-jerk reaction might be to latch on to the present perfect, pointing to throughout the last decade as a time marker that extends into the present, or now. The problem is that we do not really know whether that is the intended meaning. The sentence could be commenting on a decade that has recently wrapped up, as in the 2010s—Throughout the 2010s, the cost… increased, with families now [in the current decade] spending... You hear some Experts say that splits are not everything they are cracked up to be, and I agree. When it comes to meaning, it is better to be conservative and not tell the sentence what it means to say. I have no preference here, based on the lack of evidence.
Split #3: the modifying phrases at the end
What a nightmare for test-takers: five unique options, four of which adopt a relatively unpopular with structure. How about we examine these one by one?
Quote:
Those must be some wealthy families! Few families could afford such expenses, but the grammar can suggest such an interpretation. The easier target, in my mind, is an estimate of. I would expect the adjective estimated to appear instead. With two doubts, I would put this answer choice on the Probably Not list and move on.
Quote:
Now, with collectively, it is clear that the families are pooling money to provide care for children with food allergies, and estimated does just what I was hoping for above. I see no problems with this one.
Quote:
Well, it is terse, I will give it that. I could ponder whether an absolute phrase was appropriate for the sentence, but I would rather not. (I suppose it could.) The easier issue to note is that it repeats the phrasing of the original sentence, in which families were possibly each spending $25 billion a year to provide care for children with food allergies. Like (A), this one belongs on the Probably Not list.
Quote:
Finally, some relief from all that lack of certainty. This is not just an estimate of, which I disliked in the original sentence, but a collective estimate of, as though many people—perhaps the families themselves—had reached a consensus on just how much they were spending per year to provide the care in question. It is a tenable sentence, but highly unlikely. I would remove it from consideration altogether.
Quote:
This sounds terrible, and I find myself wondering what the result that achieves in the way of clarity that other options lack. However, a more consistent issue is that families are still spending away, maybe together, maybe not. All things considered, this is not a safe option.
Since (B) is the only answer choice that has withstood the gauntlet of scrutiny, I would feel confident selecting it. I had a lot of fun thinking about meaning on this one. I suppose you could say that a single adverb, collectively, played a large role in helping me to place confidence in one option over the others. If you felt split #2 was decisive, I would understand. The majority of the time you see such time markers, you will be dealing with a perfect tense. Just do not shut off your critical reasoning. If nothing else, notice that only answer choice (B) is safe in all three cases above: it outlines that the cost is for providing care for children, it adopts an unobjectionable verb tense in the main clause, and it clarifies that the dollar figure at the end applies to all families as an aggregate.
As always, good luck with your studies.
- Andrew
General Discussion
14 Jul 2022, 08:33
Kudos
Bookmarks
IMO D
(A) caring for children with food allergies increased, with families now spending an estimate of -- we need a present perfect
(B) providing care for children with food allergies has increased, with families now collectively spending an estimated-- collectively spending is incorrect as though the families had some joint account and they were paying together
- Incorrect
(C) caring for children with food allergies increased, families having spent an estimated- a present perfect is preferred over simple past
(D) providing care for children with food allergies has increased, with families now spending a collective estimate of- use of present perfect is correct Also error of B is corrected
(E) providing care for children with food allergies increased, with the result that families spent an estimated-- awkward and wordy
(A) caring for children with food allergies increased, with families now spending an estimate of -- we need a present perfect
(B) providing care for children with food allergies has increased, with families now collectively spending an estimated-- collectively spending is incorrect as though the families had some joint account and they were paying together
- Incorrect(C) caring for children with food allergies increased, families having spent an estimated- a present perfect is preferred over simple past
(D) providing care for children with food allergies has increased, with families now spending a collective estimate of- use of present perfect is correct Also error of B is corrected
(E) providing care for children with food allergies increased, with the result that families spent an estimated-- awkward and wordy
