In 1981 children in the United States spent an average of slightly les
[#permalink]
15 Nov 2023, 16:25
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.
Option Elimination -
(A) chores; by 1997 they had spent nearly six hours a week - "they," as Daagh and others mentioned, refers to the same children. The intended meaning is that children, on average, spend less than 2.5 hours a week, and by 1997, that figure had grown to nearly 6 hours a week. Moreover, "had grown" means that by 1997, they had spent 6 hours a week. Past perfect is used for actions completed in the past. So the children spent nearly 6 hours sometime between 1982 and 1996. We don't know how much they spent in 1997 - maybe 1 or 10 hours. This is a good deception. GMAT wants to ensure even when we understand the usage of past perfect; we use it in the right context. Wrong.
(B) chores; by 1997 that figure had grown to nearly six hours a week - we don't have a "they" issue here. Moreover, as now "they" are gone, we are comparing the hours spent in 1981 with the hours that had grown to nearly 6 hours sometime between 1982 and 1996
(C) chores, whereas nearly six hours a week were spent in 1997 - inferior in a shift from active to passive voice for no reason. Otherwise, there is no problem as such. I get it that, at first, it may seem we are comparing "six hours" with children, but this is also an adverbial modification of "the children spent" in the earlier clause, so logically, we can still get it that we are talking about Children. In the same context as "they," if the adverbial refers to the same children, it is a problem. Moreover, the shift is unnecessary. On GMAT SC, we need to find the best option among 5.
(D) chores, compared with a figure of nearly six hours a week in 1997 - "a figure" means any general figure, but "that figure" is better as we need to refer to the "average amount of time spent on household chores."
Compared with" is used to highlight similarities or differences between two things. The new model of the car has improved fuel efficiency compared with the previous version. As GMATNinja also pointed out, when we read that the car has improved fuel efficiency, we wonder with respect to what? Right? With respect to the previous version. But in our sentence here, if we notice the first part, "Children spent less than 2.5 hours." It's a complete thought because here, the comparison is with respect to 2.5 hours. So "compared with" is useless here and doesn't make sense.
(E) chores, that figure growing to nearly six hours a week in 1997 - "in 1997" only in this year? applicable to all options with "in 1997." Moreover, we have a noun phrase after a comma. It should modify the nearest noun, which is household chores. Wrong.
close
