It is currently 16 Dec 2017, 07:09

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

4 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
S
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 747

Kudos [?]: 331 [4], given: 13

Location: Bangalore, India
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2013, 23:10
4
This post received
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
ajmalshams wrote:
my doubt is

"that" starts another subordinate clause right ??

so how can the subject and verb for "that" clause be the subject and verb for the clause starting with "a phenomenon"


Actually clause starting with "a phenomenon" is not a clause at all!! It's a phrase. Let's take an example:

ajmalshams is studying for GMAT, a competitive exam.
- Hopefully it is easy for you to see that "a competitive exam" is a phrase (and not a clause).

Now lets look at the following sentence:

ajmalshams is studying for GMAT, a competitive exam that is tough to crack .
- Again, the above sentence, at the "core" is same as the previous one; just that the subordinate clause that is tough to crack is modifying a competitive exam. So, a competitive exam that is tough to crack still acts as a phrase.

Also, when Zarrolou says "appositive phrase", perhaps (s)he means "absolute phrase". In SC, it is very essential that test takers get very comfortable with "absolute phrases". Since the structure of "absolute phrase" is so "non-intuitive", GMAT loves to test on that. Few examples from OG:

#102, OG-13:
Yellow jackets number among the 900 or so species of the world's social wasps, wasps that live in a highly cooperative and organized society consisting almost entirely of females—the queen and her sterile female workers.

#38, OG-12:
In 1850, Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women and for changes in the married women’s property laws.

The bold in these sentences is absolute phrase. There are many many other examples in official sources.
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish (GMAT Faculty @ EducationAisle)
http://www.EducationAisle.com

Sentence Correction Nirvana available at Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com

Kudos [?]: 331 [4], given: 13

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2013
Posts: 99

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 60

Schools: ISB '15
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Nov 2013, 23:06
B.

A. a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing - Not just because of X but by the fact Y--incorrect
B. a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing - Not just by X but also by Y -- Correct

C. a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written - Not just beacuase of drugs ...but (also is reqd) because of Doctors ---incorrect
D. which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing -- which is incorrect
E. which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written -- which is incorrect
_________________

Veritas Prep - 650
MGMAT 1 590
MGMAT 2 640 (V48/Q31)

Please help the community by giving Kudos.

Kudos [?]: 38 [0], given: 60

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 112

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 44

Location: United States
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Nov 2013, 17:34
geetchandratre wrote:
anilisanil wrote:
geetchandratre wrote:

The answer is C.


Definitely not C.

drugs that are becoming more expensive- This wrongly suggests that there are other drugs that are not becoming expensive. There is a whole world of difference between "drugs are becoming expensive" and "drugs that are becoming expensive".

Not X But Y suggests a contrast. Which, in this case, means the phenomenon is not caused by the drugs but is caused by doctors prescribing them. Which is nonsensical. Also, Not Just X but Y is WRONG.

Hence C can definitely be not the answer!


Not X But Y
Not only X, BUT also Y
Not (Just because of drugs) X, But (because of......) Y
The idiom is infact correct.
The aim of SC is to select the BEST answer, and not always the completely CORRECT answer.
As we can easily rule out rest of the answers, C is the BEST answer.
I hope this helps. http://www.platinumgmat.com/about_gmat/ ... idiom_list


Hi, I don't have any doubt to conclude that C is not the best answer. I clearly mentioned the reasons for you to think about.

If you are convinced that C is the answer, then good for you.

Kudos [?]: 58 [0], given: 44

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jan 2013
Posts: 217

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 47

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2014, 03:07
gregspirited wrote:
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

A. a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing
B. a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing
C. a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written
D. which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing
E. which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written



Intuitively you could argue that a past participle works better than a present participle, since we're talking about a past event. BUT, the parallelism in D and E is weird - it simply doesn't work.

So we focus on the first three instead: A and C have weird parallelisms: "is explained not just because... more expensive drugs but...by the fact that doctors are writing" is weird.

"also" in C is weird.

B is correct

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 47

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 May 2013
Posts: 186

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 72

Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GPA: 3.82
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Apr 2014, 06:21
tcsing wrote:
Hi, this question has been posted before, but regarding a different point of grammar, hence starting a new thread.

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

(A) a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing

(B) a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing

(C) a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written

(D) which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing

(E) which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written

The correct answer is B. However, does the verb tense make sense? The phenomenon was in 2000, but it is explained by 2 factors that are happening now? (doctors are writing... drugs are becoming...)

Anyone have any thoughts? Thanks!


Hi

I have doubt on this
Will D) be correct if construction was like
which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but also doctors are writing

Which clause can modify only preceeding noun?
So this makes this formation wrong. please help me out .


Thanks in Advance,
Swami

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 72

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2013
Posts: 298

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 23

Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jul 2014, 14:06
Can someone please explain why D and E are NOT parallel?

D) Not just because -- drugs are becoming xxx but (because-implied) doctors are also writing
E) Not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 23

Intern
Intern
avatar
Status: Preparing for GMAT
Joined: 10 Dec 2013
Posts: 18

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 61

Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Leadership
GMAT 1: 530 Q46 V18
WE: Other (Entertainment and Sports)
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2014, 06:29
There was a lot of discussion, but can someone please explain how the tense "are becoming" and "are writing" in B is correct even when the sentence starts with a time reference - "In 2000,". Seems pretty confusing to me. I did read the explanation for it in OG-13(SC-86), but it talks only about the incorrect placement of also in C and E. And if the word "also" were to be placed correctly, does that make option C correct?

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 61

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Sep 2014
Posts: 64

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 13

Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Feb 2015, 13:41
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

A. a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing
Incorrect. The idiom is not just...but also.
B. a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing
Correct. The idiom is not just...but also. Also, even though the appositive is not near to "increase", what comes in between is a vital-noun-modifier "in spending on prescription drugs", which has priority in the touching rule.
C. a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written
Incorrect. The idiom is not just...but also.
D. which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing
Incorrect. The idiom is not just...but also.
E. which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written
Incorrect. The idiom is not just...but also.

The correct answer is B.

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 13

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Posts: 194

Kudos [?]: 421 [0], given: 886

Location: United States
Concentration: Economics, Finance
GMAT Date: 10-16-2013
GPA: 3
WE: Analyst (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jun 2015, 09:49
The correct idiom is "Not just X but also Y" where X and Y are logically parallel.
Also both X and Y should support what is being talked about.
Example -
The Islahiye camp is a place of hatred and defiance, a concentration of families who say they have been chased from their homes not just by rifles and government troops but also by indiscriminate aerial and artillery barrages.

Here Families have been chased for two reasons - by rifles and government and by indiscriminate aerial and artillery barrages.
hence both these reasons should be of the same sign.

Let us see the answer choices "

(A) a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing.
X and Y are not parallel hence this is incorrect.
(B) a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing
X and Y are parallel and supporting the reason hence this choice is correct.
(C) a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written
X and Y are not parallel
(D) which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing
- Usage of which is incorrect. Which modifies the closest noun and in this case it is prescription drugs.
(E) which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written
_________________

Kudos me if you like my post !!!!

Kudos [?]: 421 [0], given: 886

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 12 Apr 2013
Posts: 37

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 20

Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
Reviews Badge
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jul 2015, 06:35
B it is. Parallel structure.

(B) a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing
_________________

Commitment is about stretching your capabilities. It can take you across all obstacles!!

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 20

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2015
Posts: 29

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 11

Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GPA: 3.3
WE: Consulting (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Nov 2015, 20:22
Not only.. But also idiom is followed in B.. Can someone please explain this?
We non-natives students tend to fail in these questions because, we make a list of idioms, parallel markers and follow the same. I got this wrong after a long thinking .. please help
_________________

When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 11

Expert Post
Jamboree GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Status: GMAT Expert
Affiliations: Jamboree Education Pvt Ltd
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Posts: 284

Kudos [?]: 324 [0], given: 1

Location: India
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Nov 2015, 23:37
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
In this question the idiom is not ‘not only-but also’. It is ‘not- but’. So, whatever is repeated after 'not' should be repeated after 'but' . Hence, it is ‘not by’ and ‘but by’ which has been used in B. Also, remember if you have ‘just’, it is always followed by ‘also’. Hence, the correct format is 'not just by-but also by’. So, the answer is B.
_________________

Aryama Dutta Saikia
Jamboree Education Pvt. Ltd.

Kudos [?]: 324 [0], given: 1

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 12 Jun 2015
Posts: 50

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 309

Schools: Sloan '19
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jan 2016, 08:35
one quick query please...
Is the "modified optionC" grammatically correct ? If yes , then between "B" and "Modified C" , which option should be selected and why?
B. a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing.
Modified C. a phenomenon occurring not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing.

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 309

1 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4321

Kudos [?]: 8352 [1], given: 366

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jan 2016, 09:28
1
This post received
KUDOS
Nope! Modified C will not be correct. Pl. ask when the phenomenon occurred? It was in 2000, a past time, whereas 'occurring' does not denote timing. It can be past, present or future. So, using a timeless factor to denote a past event is logically incorrect.
_________________

Can you solve at least some SC questions without delving into the initial statement?

Narendran 98845 44509

Kudos [?]: 8352 [1], given: 366

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 May 2016
Posts: 14

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 23

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 710 Q58 V48
GPA: 3.46
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jun 2016, 21:11
i am still confused about a modifying phrase.

I do understand what EducationAisle said.

For the example given, "I am studying GMAT, a competitive exam that is hard to crack." The modifying phrase "a competitive exam that is hard to crack" is modifying GMAT.
However, in this example, a phenomenon that.... is not modifying prescription drugs but the entire sentence. How is this correct? Can you give examples similar to this?

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 23

1 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
S
Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 747

Kudos [?]: 331 [1], given: 13

Location: Bangalore, India
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jun 2016, 21:35
1
This post received
KUDOS
hyoeun87 wrote:
i am still confused about a modifying phrase.

I do understand what EducationAisle said.

For the example given, "I am studying GMAT, a competitive exam that is hard to crack." The modifying phrase "a competitive exam that is hard to crack" is modifying GMAT.

Hello hyoeun87, you are correct. The intent of the example was to illustrate that a competitive exam that is hard to crack is a phrase and not a clause (as was the perception of the user earlier).

hyoeun87 wrote:
However, in this example, a phenomenon that.... is not modifying prescription drugs but the entire sentence. How is this correct? Can you give examples similar to this?

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

Indeed, and this is a very common structure, extensively tested on GMAT. Few official examples from the Official Verbal supplement:

#75: Scientists have observed large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits in the upper twenty centimeters of sediments from the Baltic Sea, findings consistent with the growth of industrial activity in the area.
- Absolute modifier findings consistent with... modifying the entire previous clause.

#100: Sixty-five million years ago, according to some scientists, an asteroid bigger than Mount Everest slammed into North America, an event that caused the plant and animal extinctions that mark the end of the geologic era known as the Cretaceous Period.
- Absolute modifier an event that caused.... modifying the entire previous clause.

p.s. Our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses Absolute modifiers, its application and examples in significant detail. If someone is interested, PM me your email-id, I can mail the corresponding section.
_________________

Thanks,
Ashish (GMAT Faculty @ EducationAisle)
http://www.EducationAisle.com

Sentence Correction Nirvana available at Amazon.in and Flipkart

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi.com

Kudos [?]: 331 [1], given: 13

Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 02 May 2015
Posts: 260

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 23

Location: South Africa
Concentration: International Business, Organizational Behavior
GPA: 3.49
WE: Web Development (Insurance)
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jul 2016, 01:08
perfectstranger wrote:
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.
(A) a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing
(B) a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing
(C) a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written
(D) which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing
(E) which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written


This question has posted to the forum 2 years ago. However, because there is not any expert explanation, I have posted it again .

I want to learn why the idiom not only.....but also is not valid here.

I have read the same structure in New York Times today. Could anyone give a hand to that issue?

NYT Paragraph

The Islahiye camp is a place of hatred and defiance, a concentration of families who say they have been chased from their homes not just by rifles and government troops but also by indiscriminate aerial and artillery barrages.

Thanks a lot.



Not A But B signifies contrast. Which is not the intention here

Not only A but also B is required to clarify that these are 2 reasons for the same thing
_________________

Kudos if I helped ;)

Kudos [?]: 91 [0], given: 23

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Oct 2016, 00:12
dear experts,
I am confused with absolute phrase and appositive phrase.

any expert can point out how to distinguish these two different modifiers?

I compared these two modifiers, I figured out that absolute phrase can be placed anywhere of the sentence, while appositive phrase only followed a noun which will be modified.

is this way valid?
is any other way to approach?
how to distinguish these two modifiers?

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Expert Post
Verbal Expert
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3227

Kudos [?]: 3648 [0], given: 22

Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Oct 2016, 01:50
zoezhuyan wrote:
dear experts,
I am confused with absolute phrase and appositive phrase.

any expert can point out how to distinguish these two different modifiers?

I compared these two modifiers, I figured out that absolute phrase can be placed anywhere of the sentence, while appositive phrase only followed a noun which will be modified.

is this way valid?
is any other way to approach?
how to distinguish these two modifiers?

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~


Absolute phrases have the following structure: noun + noun modifier. They modify the whole clause in some way.
I have heard about the event just yesterday, the event that rocked the nation. (noun = event, noun modifier= that rocked the nation - modifies the whole clause)

Appositives consists of just a noun (or a noun phrase). Appositives are noun modifiers (i.e. a noun modifying another noun).
Tommy, my little brother, has done this. (noun phrase = my little brother - no modifier for my little brother - modifies Tommy)

Kudos [?]: 3648 [0], given: 22

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 198

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Oct 2016, 21:40
sayantanc2k wrote:
Absolute phrases have the following structure: noun + noun modifier. They modify the whole clause in some way.
I have heard about the event just yesterday, the event that rocked the nation. (noun = event, noun modifier= that rocked the nation - modifies the whole clause)

Appositives consists of just a noun (or a noun phrase). Appositives are noun modifiers (i.e. a noun modifying another noun).
Tommy, my little brother, has done this. (noun phrase = my little brother - no modifier for my little brother - modifies Tommy)


thanks so much for your quickly reply,
Sayatanc2k,

would you please confirm my fool question,

noun + noun phrase, the noun phrase modifies single noun, will the noun phrase be introduce by prep, or That - clause?
noun modifier , must it be introduced by That-clause ?

absolute phrase modifies the whole proceeding clause, appositive phrase modifies the proceeding noun

I had a OG question on hand, OG16, # 84, following is incorrect SC that I replaced with the option, IMO, I think of it as a absolute phrase. what's why I think of the sentence as correct.
Quote:
Unlike the original National Museum of Science and Technology in Italy, where the models are encased in glass or operated only by staff members, the Virtual Leonardo Project, an online version of the museum, encourages visitors to “touch” each exhibit, in turn an activation of the animated functions of the piece.

here the structure "an activation" (noun) + "of the animated function of the piece "(prep phrase or noun modifier) modifies the proceeding clause, as the result of the proceeding clause..

I am confused it a lot.

BTW, OA says A is redundant, I did not figure out it, would you please clarify?
Quote:
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon that is explained not just because of more expensive drugs but by the fact that doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.
thanks a lot

have a nice day
>_~

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 30

Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for   [#permalink] 01 Oct 2016, 21:40

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 53 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.