GMATWhiz Explanation

Step 1: Understanding Intended Meaning

According to a defence ministry circular, the Military Engineering Services has laid-off almost 10,000 employees,

• We are talking about a certain organization - Military Engineering Services.
• According to a certain circular, this organization has fired nearly 10,000 of its employees.

about equivalent to the hiring in the department in the last two years.

• The prepositional phrase starting with “about” can logically modify only the noun “employees”.
• The phrase makes no sense. The words “about equivalent” suggest that something is being compared but what?

o It seems to suggest the employees are equivalent to the hiring- the number of employees is being compared to the hiring.
o The comparison is illogical.
o The sentence is clearly trying to compare the number of employees who have been laid-off with the number of employees who were hired in the department in the last two years
o The correct sentence should reflect the correct comparison.
• NOTE: So what’s being compared when we look strictly and literally at (A)? Basically, the sentence is saying that “10,000 employees ” who have been laid-off are “equivalent to the hiring in the department in the last two years.
• That’s not quite right. The word “equivalent” generally suggests that two things are similar in quality or function, and “hiring” generally refers to an entire group of employees as a collective. So this sentence is literally saying that the “10,000 employees ” who have been laid-off are “similar in quality or function” to the collective group of employees who were hired.
• And that doesn’t make any sense. We’re not saying that the groups of people are similar in quality; we’re trying to say that the groups have the same number of people.

Intended meaning:

• We are talking about a certain organization - Military Engineering Services.
• According to a certain circular, this organization has fired nearly 10,000 of its employees.
• The number of employees that have been laid-off is nearly the same as the number of employees that have been hired in the department in the last two years.

Step 2: Eliminate choices with identified errors

Checking for five aspects

1. Golden rules
2. Meaning

a. The sentence is illogical because of illogical comparison.
3. Lists

a. No error
4. Tenses

a. No error
5. Idioms

Eliminate
The following choice/s have one or more of the errors present in Choice A.
Choice C and D


Step 3: Evaluate meaning of remaining choices

To be done for Option B and E . Detailed out below each choice.

Choice A Analysis
Incorrect and Eliminated in Step 2

Choice B Analysis
Fitting in the original sentence:
According to a defence ministry circular, the Military Engineering Services has laid-off almost 10,000 employees, about the equivalent of those hired in the department in the last two years.

• “Those” is a plural pronoun, and in this case, “those” presumably refers to “employees.”
• So that gives us: “…10,000 (employees laid off), the equivalent of the employees hired in the department in the last two years.” Superficially, it’s nice that this compares “10,000 employees” who have been laid-off to “the employees hired”, but we’re still saying that the two types of people are “equivalent” – again, roughly similar in quality or function. And that doesn’t make sense, for the same reasons as (A).

Incorrect Choice.

Choice C Analysis
Incorrect and Eliminated in Step 2

Choice D Analysis
Incorrect and Eliminated in Step 2.

Choice E Analysis
Fitting in the original sentence
According to a defence ministry circular, the Military Engineering Services has laid-off almost 10,000 employees, about as many as were hired in the department in the last two years.

• Meaning-wise, the phrase “as many as” is correct. It’s finally clear that we’re comparing the number of people in each group.
• So, 10,000 employees is about as many (employees) as were hired .

 Logical
 Clear,
 Same as the intended meaning

Correct Choice.
_________________

A. equivalent to the hiring in
Wrong comparison employees with hiring

B. the equivalent of those hired in
Equivalent is wrong usage , employees were not same but the number was equivalent

C. as many as the hiring of
Wrong comparison employees with hiring

D. as many as the hiring in
Wrong comparison employees with hiring

E. as many as were hired in
As many as (employees) were hired in -correct

Note the comparison is between the NUMBER of employees laid off and the NUMBER of employees hired.



10k EMPLOYEES can't be equivalent to HIRING. The comparison is wrong. Even if hiring is supposed to denote the entire group that was hired, equivalent is the wrong word to use here, because 10k EMPLOYEES are not EQUIVALENT to the group hired.


those goes back to employees. So, here the comparison is between 10k EMPLOYEES and employees hired. We aren't really comparing numbers again. Also, saying equivalent changes the intended meaning. Equivalence means they are same in some way, which isn't what the original sentence wants to say.


As many as is much better for comparing numbers. But, the comparison again becomes illogical because 10K people are being compared to HIRING.


Same issue as in C


This is the best answer in my opinion.
This concisely states, 10k people were AS MANY AS (implying in number) the people who were hired in the department.
Makes perfect logical sense

Answer: E

Similar OG question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/according-to ... 46774.html

Posted from my mobile device

The sentence clearly tries to compare the number of laid-off people with the number of hired people.

A. equivalent to the hiring in

The word “equivalent” generally implies that two things are similar in quality or function, and “hiring” generally refers to an entire group of hired employees as a collective. Hence this choice is literally stating that 10,000 laid-off employees are “similar in quality or function” to the collective group of hired employees. That makes no sense.

We could perhaps say “one highly skilled employee is equivalent to 3 unskilled ones” in the sense that skilled employee is thrice as productive as 3 unskilled ones. However, that’s not the case here. This sentence simply compares the number with the number.


B. the equivalent of those hired in

The same issue as in A. We can probably say that “those” refers to “employees” and once again we will be saying that one group of people is similar to another group of people in terms of qualification, skills, knowledge, experience, and such. However, this is not what the sentence is trying to say. The only difference between A and B is that “equivalent of” is a noun while “equivalent to” is an adjective with identical meaning.


C. as many as the hiring of
D. as many as the hiring in

Let’s juxtapose C and D because they are much alike and similarly illogical.
1. “as many as” makes much sense because now we can infer that the number is compared with the number. However, “as many as” disagrees with “the hiring” because “hiring” is a collective noun and uncountable in this case.
2. another issue is that “the hiring of” is parallel with nothing.
3. when we have “somebody did A as many as B” with parallel elements A and B, the implied meaning is “somebody did A as many as he did B”. For example “John has as many books as pens”, then we mean that “John has as many books as he has pens”. Here the second verb “has” is usually omitted but implied.
Similarly, if we say “X laid-off 1000 people, as many as the hiring” without a verb, then the meaning can be ambiguous:
- Is it “X laid-off 1000 people, as many as the hiring laid-off people” ?
- Or “X laid-off 1000 people, as many as X laid-off the hiring” ?

We need a verb to avoid such ambiguity, and E gives this verb:


E. as many as were hired in

“X has laid-off 1000 people, as many as were hired” – no ambiguity. Good.


Hence E

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Let me analyze this question.
1. Comparison
the number of employees should compare to the number of people who are hired.

2. Idiom
The word “equivalent” suggests that two things are similar in quality or function.
The word "as many as" compares the number of people in each group.

Process of elimination.

The problem is associated with #1 and #2. Out.


Those refer to "employees" so the intended meaning is unclear. Also, Mistake #1 and #2. Out.


This choice uses "as many as", which is better than choice A and choice B, but mistake #1 still remains. Out.


Same as C. Out.


No mistake. This choice compares the number of employees to the number of (people who) were hired in ... Keep it.

So I choose E.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________