In 1981 children in the United States spent an average of slightly les

As a general rule, I wouldn't try to figure out if words in a sentence are missing, because, well, mind-reading is hard.

Instead, we simply want to ask ourselves if the given sentence, as written, clearly conveys a logical and unambiguous meaning. For example, If I write, "Tim has more rainbow-colored parakeets than Nancy," it's true that I left out the word "does" at the end of it, but no reasonable person would misinterpret the sentence to mean that Tim has more parakeets than he has Nancy! This sentence is fine.

But if I write, "Tim loves rainbow-colored parakeets more than Nancy," I could be conveying more than one possible meaning: that Tim loves parakeets more than Tim loves Nancy, or that Tim loves parakeets more than Nancy loves parakeets. So this one is a problem.

That said, I think your explanations are mostly dead-on. I'd add that in (E), we have a faulty VERB-ing modification. The figure didn't grow to 6 hours a week as a result of children having spent little time doing household chores in the past. Moreover, it sounds as though the growth from less than 2.5 to 6 took place in entirely in 1997. Compare this to the meaning in (B), that the growth had taken place by 1997, possibly over several years. The latter interpretation is more logical.

And for a more on why (A) is wrong, take a look at my earlier post in this thread.

But you only need one valid reason for eliminating an answer choice, so you did excellent work here.

Nicely done!

Hi shanu1218, this is not correct. 1997 did not happen before 1981.

Basically, the crux of Past Perfect is:

Past perfect expresses the scenario that an event happened at some point before another event in the past, or at some point before another time in the past.

Here, the sentence under consideration is:

by 1997 that figure had grown to nearly six hours a week

The event of children in the United States spending nearly six hours a week doing household chores, happened at some point in or before another time (in this case, 1997) in the past. Hence, past perfect (had been) is the appropriate usage here.

So basically, this particular sentence represents the following scenario:

Past perfect is used to depict an event that has happened within some time-frame before another time in the past

Reproducing a similar example given in our book:

Peter started his business in 2012; by 2014, he had established himself well in the business.

Explanation: This sentence is in past perfect (had established). If the sentence was by 2014, Peter had established himself well in the business, the time frame of reference for the event (Peter getting well-established in the business) would basically start in the past (in this case, year 2014) and would continue infinitely into the past. However, the sentence under consideration also states: Peter started his business in 2012. By stating this, the sentence is restricting the time frame that it is referring to in the past (in this case, until year 2012).

You can watch our video on Past Perfect. Especially watch out for Usage -2 explained in the video.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses this scenario of Past Perfect. Have attached the corresponding section of the book, for your reference.

First, take a look at a couple examples of "compared with" from other official SC answers:

• "Minivans carry as many as seven passengers and, compared with most sport utility vehicles, cost less, get better gas mileage, allow passengers to get in and out more easily, and have a smoother ride." - Notice that it would be meaningless to just say that minivans "cost less" or "get better gas mileage" -- that would leave the reader wondering, "... cost less than what? Get better mileage than what?" These statements only make sense when minivans are compared with most sport utility vehicles.
• "The four-million-year-old fossilized skeleton known as Lucy is so small compared with many other skeleton presumed to be of the same species that some paleontologists have argued that Lucy represents a different lineage." - Here, the word "small" is of course relative -- the skeleton known as Lucy might actually seem quite large compared to the skeleton of tiny mouse. But compared with other skeletons of the same species, the skeleton known as Lucy is small.

Both of these sentences involve a description that only makes sense when one thing is compared with another. But that's not the case here:


This statement makes perfect sense on its own. The fact that the children spent less than 2.5 hrs/wk doing chores in 1981 doesn't depend or rely on a comparison to some other figure. So the use of "compared with" doesn't actually make much sense here. If that's not clear, consider these simpler examples:

• "Compared to LeBron, Tim doesn't make a lot of money." - This makes sense because whether Tim makes a lot of money is relative -- relative to a paper boy, Tim might make a lot. But relative to LeBron, Tim does not make a lot.
• "Tim makes $50,000 per year, compared with LeBron's salary of $40 million." - This one doesn't make sense. The amount of money Tim makes is NOT relative -- it doesn't matter whether we're comparing his salary to LeBron's salary or to Timmy Jr.'s earnings as a paper boy. Either way, Tim makes $50,000 per year.

So that's one vote against (D). Another is the use of "a figure" (as opposed to "that figure" in choice B). The use of "that" makes it more clear that we are talking about the same kind of figure (the average amount of time that children in the US spent doing household chores in a given year).

Lastly, even though it is of course illogical to compare "children" to "figure," the structure of (D) makes it easy for the reader to think, at first glance, that we are comparing what the children did to what the figure did. Can we figure out the intended meaning? Sure. But the structure doesn't lend itself to the logical meaning, making it less than ideal.

No smoking guns here, but we have plenty of reasons to pick (B) over (D).

I hope that helps!

Gokul20

We only want to switch from active to passive voice (or vice versa) when there's a reason to do so. Choice C just arbitrarily shifts, and this shift doesn't do anything to make the sentence clearer or easier to read. Additionally, the first part of the comparison is about an average number of hours per week, but C drops that in the second half. If we were to read it completely literally, it would be saying that the TOTAL hours of all children added up to 6 hrs/wk. Sure, this isn't the intended meaning, but the correct answers makes sure to maintain the parallelism of the comparison by comparing one statistic to another comparable statistic.

Can you plz put your first sentence with the OA in the protected "reveal" part. It will avoid some to be influenced by knowing directly the OA! Thxs!

I personnally narrow it down B and C. Had problem with C but the parallel structure is not respected, so chose B!

For A, the problem is that we do not know what "they" refers to (could be hours, chores...)!

Hope it helps!

Hi EducationAisle,

Can you please elaborate on why A is incorrect here? Option A is similar to your example - "By 1947, British had ruled India for 150 years."

GMATNinja I could not locate good error pointers in the ACs to test, would you consider eliminating A,C on the basis of meaning (that it's not as clear as B?) or is this a case of correct omission of words? My reasons for eliminating answers from from most confident to least confident.

(D) chores, compared with a figure of nearly six hours a week in 1997
makes it sound like the "children ... doing chores" is compared with "a figure"

(E) chores, that figure growing to nearly six hours a week in 1997
wrongly uses simple present to talk about an action finished in the past

(A) chores; by 1997 they had spent nearly six hours a week
"[children] spent six hours a week" doing what?

(C) chores, whereas nearly six hours a week were spent in 1997
passive voice "were spent" ... by whom? doing what?

(B) chores; by 1997 that figure had grown to nearly six hours a week
"that figure" refers back to the average
"had grown" is correct past perfect form

Regarding choice (A), consider the following adjusted version of the original version of the sentence:

In 1981 children in the United States spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing household chores; by 1997 they were spending nearly six hours a week.

Now, there is in the second clause still no mention of what the children "were spending nearly six hours a week" doing, but the meaning is fairly clear. So, while the above sentence is not ideal, the lack of mention of what the children "had spent nearly six hours week" doing is not the most critical issue.

So, what's the most critical issue?

The most critical issue is the use of the past perfect "had spent."

The use of "had spent" results in the creation of a comparison that is not logical. On the one hand we have what the children did in 1981. On the other, we have what the children "had" done by 1997. Even if we assume that, "by 1997," the children "had spent nearly six hours a week" doing household chores, when they had spent that nearly six hours a week is not clear. Are we meant to believe that, even including the time spent in 1981, and perhaps including time spent back to the dawn of time, by 1997, children had spent a weighted average of nearly six hours per week doing household chores? That meaning seems rather unlikely to be the one that the author meant to convey.

Deciding that choice (A) should be eliminated simply because what the children had spent nearly six hours doing is not directly mentioned is a bit too simplistic, and the overall takeaway here is that you can make your thinking about these choices more sophisticated.

GMAT verbal is to a large degree a test of the level of sophistication of the thinking that you bring to bear when answering the questions.

@Bunoel, can you merge with this one?
https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-1981-chil ... 71085.html

This ine is showing first on google

The beginning of the sentence talks about what happened "In 1981". The sentence is comparing the average in one year to the average in another. So the figure cited later in the sentence is the average for the year 1997, and not the average for some long period of time ending in 1997. There are other problems with A - the "they" refers back to the children from 1981, so it sounds like the second half of answer A is talking about how much time the same people spent on chores when they were 16 years older. It's also not clear what "they had spent six hours a week" means -- doing what? The sentence is supposed to compare one average with another. Answer A doesn't do that (it doesn't even say that the "six hours" is an average). And (probably the most obvious issue) there is no justification for using the past perfect tense in A.

Answer B resolves all of those issues.

pk6969
It looks like a few folks have knocked out A above, but I'll give you another angle. Imagine that I said "By midnight, I had driven 90 miles an hour." The past perfect tense indicates that this action was completed sometime before midnight, but what does it mean to complete driving at some rate? It seems much more likely that the author wants to say "By midnight, I was driving 90 miles an hour." This means that when midnight arrived, I was going at that speed. However, I could also use the form in B of the original q and say "I had increased my speed to 90 mph" or "my speed had increased to 90 mph." Now the completed action is the increase, but the speed is still 90 mph at midnight.

Going back to kids' chores, A) is saying that kids had worked at this particular rate at some unspecified time between 1981 and 1997. That would be a very strange and narrow statement to make.

Hi Dhwanii, you might want to go thru this post.

HI E-GMAT,
In 1981 children in the United States spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing household chores; by 1997 they had spent nearly six hours a week.
A. spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing household chores; by 1997 they had spent nearly six hours a week
B. spent slightly less than an average of two and a half hours a week doing household chores; by 1997 that figure had grown to nearly six hours a week
C. had spent slightly less than two and a half hours, on an average, per week doing household chores, whereas nearly six hours a week were spent in 1997
D. spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing household chores, compared with a figure of nearly six hours a week in 1997
E. spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing household chores, that figure growing to nearly six hours a week in 1997

my queries is , Once the time frame is mention in the choices by In 1981 and By 1997 , then why we required past perfect tense? Could you please help me where I'm getting wrong .

Secondly , In choice B , could you please explain how the second clause is a Independent clause ,which started with "by 1997" construction ?.

Finally ,Choice C Isn't it the "compared with a figure" is a correct modifier?

Thanks

Meaning of the sentence- In 1981, children were spending less than two and a half hours/ week on average, but in 1997 they were spending 6 hours/week.

A. spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing household chores; by 1997 they had spent nearly six hours a week
B. spent slightly less than an average of two and a half hours a week doing household chores; by 1997 that figure had grown to nearly six hours a week
C. had spent slightly less than two and a half hours, on an average, per week doing household chores, whereas nearly six hours a week were spent in 1997 past perfect is not required as this doesn't show the sequence of the events
D. spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing household chores, compared with a figure of nearly six hours a week in 1997. Spending is compared with figure.
E. spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing household chores, that figure growing to nearly six hours a week in 1997 growing to is not required. The event happened in the past

Hi! experts and fellow learners, I opted out option A because past perfect is used (by 1997 they had spent), whereas chose option B because 'figure had grown' isn't a past perfect structure. Please advise if I am right.

Also is there any different between 'average of slightly less than two' and 'slightly less than an average of two' in option A and B respectively.

Thanks

Can you please help me understand why 'had' used for a later event makes B a correct answer choice? I am not clear. I rejected B at the first go because of the usage of 'had' , and then out of the remaining I chose D as the BEST answer.

But its strange B is correct. Kindly help.

GMATNinja @mikemcgerry

How to choose between A and B ..on the basis of meanng

So if a construction uses 'By some year' then we should always use past perfect tense?
Can we make this as a rule?