It is currently 24 Sep 2017, 00:05

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 313

Kudos [?]: 358 [1], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2007, 13:17
1
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

15% (low)

Question Stats:

78% (01:02) correct 22% (01:14) wrong based on 1506 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

The Official Guide for GMAT Review 2017

Practice Question
Question No.: SC 766
Page: 702

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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 358 [1], given: 0

VP
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1436

Kudos [?]: 333 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2007, 14:02
singh_amit19 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

I picked A....debated over A & E..........i think i shud have picked E...views???

B in my opinion.
My understanding is that you cannot separate "but also" part of the idiom. Although B uses "not just", I feel that this is the best choice. I have seen some other construction as well such as "not...but also" and it is correct.

Kudos [?]: 333 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2554

Kudos [?]: 500 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2007, 23:41
singh_amit19 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

I picked A....debated over A & E..........i think i shud have picked E...views???

This is a very strange SC. Idioms are out of whack all over the place.

My choice B b/c ||ism is maintained.

"by the fact that drugs are becoming.... but also by the fact that doctors are writing

Kudos [?]: 500 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Posts: 141

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2007, 04:49
15
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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
_________________

--gregspirited

Kudos [?]: 143 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 156

Kudos [?]: 20 [1], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2007, 07:40
1
KUDOS
Only one that seems acceptable is B.

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

C. a phenomenon occurring not just because of drugs that are becoming more expensive but because of doctors having also written
Mixture of tenses

D. which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but doctors are also writing
Mixture of tenses / needs "also because" before doctors

E. which occurred not just because of more expensive drugs but because doctors have also written
"because doctors have also written" instead of "also because doctors have written"

Kudos [?]: 20 [1], given: 0

Director
Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Posts: 515

Kudos [?]: 38 [1], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2007, 13:50
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Yep. B is correct - it's the only response that puts the idiom "not only...but also" in the correct form. In this case, it is correct to say "not just...but also". "just" becomes an acceptable substitute for "only" in the sentence. You cannot split up the "but also" - "also" must follow immediately after "but". In general, when you are trying to narrow down your answer choices, it's best to fall back on the basic idiom/grammar rules first. After you've made your cuts based on those rules, if you still have a couple of options sitting in front of you, THEN address whether or not the sentence seems too wordy.
_________________

...there ain't no such thing as a free lunch...

Kudos [?]: 38 [1], given: 0

Director
Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Posts: 515

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

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

### Show Tags

10 Dec 2007, 15:47
jingy77 wrote:
I believe you can split up the but....also. I read that somewhere. Correct me if im wrong.

You can't split the "but also", but you can, in standard written English, leave off the "also", which will put emphasis the second half of your correlative conjunction. For instance: "He is not only smart, but kind." However for the GMAT, just concentrate on the basic idioms and don't try to get too sophisticated with them. If the test throws a sentence with a possible correlative conjuction at you (either...or, neither...nor, not only...but also), don't play with the idiom. You will lose points!
_________________

...there ain't no such thing as a free lunch...

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

VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1403

Kudos [?]: 423 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

21 Sep 2008, 13:44
nmohindru wrote:
Nihit 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

Guys please explain the idiom usage here !

IMO B) right idiom

While I agree with B, AFAIK, there is no such idiom not just X but also Y

What is the source of this Q?

D & E are wrong because they refer to drugs (using which) and not the phenomenon

B can be correct only by parallelism of by the fact

A uses because and by the fact. C says occuring as if this is present tense. We are talking about past in year 2000

Kudos [?]: 423 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
Posts: 355

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 17

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

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2011, 13:22
Nihit 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

Guys please explain the idiom usage here !

I marked the right answer as B, which is also the OA.

BUT my question is: Are the following options also correct and same as saying B? If now why - what's wrong in one or more of the following?
F: a phenomenon that is not just because of the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also because of the fact that doctors are writing
G: a phenomenon that is because of not just the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also the fact that doctors are writing
H: a phenomenon that is because of the fact not just that drugs are becoming more expensive but also that doctors are writing

ALSO, what if I use by the fact that instead because of the fact that, what would happen to F, G and H? Is by the fact that even idiomatic and does it even hold the same meaning as the because of the fact that?
Thanks.

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 17

Director
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 537

Kudos [?]: 349 [1], given: 75

Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jul 2012, 06:20
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
The basic scanning gives the following details;

(D) and (E) are out because of the ,which

(A) & (C) have " just because " which is not considered correct in GMAT.

(B) just is playing the role of " only " though it's not the best but the best available option here.
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Kudos [?]: 349 [1], given: 75

Manager
Joined: 02 May 2012
Posts: 108

Kudos [?]: 71 [1], given: 34

Location: United Kingdom
WE: Account Management (Other)
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jul 2012, 06:39
1
KUDOS
Hi perfectstranger

I'd take my answer with a pinch of salt because I'm not great with SC but here goes....

(A), (C) and (E) are wrong because they initially say not just.... (therefore infering this reason and an additional reason) but go on to finish but.... (therefore infering not the first reason, but instead the second reason)

(D) and (E) are out because which incorrectly modifies prescription drugs

Leaving (B)

Hope that helps!

B.
_________________

In the study cave!

Kudos [?]: 71 [1], given: 34

Retired Moderator
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4273

Kudos [?]: 7616 [4], given: 360

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

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2012, 21:33
4
KUDOS
5
This post was
BOOKMARKED
The correlative conjunction- not only … but also has several other avatars. They are

1. Not only… but also
2. Not only by … but also by
3. Not only because …. But also because
4. Not only because of … but also because of
5. Not just… but also
6. not just by…. But also by

and so on with the additions of because, because of etc, all of them valid structures very often seen in GMAT

not just by …… but also by is equal to -not only by …. But also by- . There is not much different to see through both of them.

In that case, the correct version of the text would be

a phenomenon that is explained not only because of more expensive drugs but also because of the fact that doctors are writing

or

a phenomenon that is explained not only by the fact that drugs are becoming more expensive but also by the fact that doctors are writing

This is the position as far as the use of // in correlative conjunctions is concerned.
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Kudos [?]: 7616 [4], given: 360

Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3350

Kudos [?]: 8765 [1], given: 1139

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

### Show Tags

09 Jan 2013, 04:17
1
KUDOS
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!

here aside the verb tense a lot is a question of meaning

ONly B has sense because the phenomenon (by the way singular, phenomena is plural) is caused by the $$FACT$$ that drugs are more expensive and by the $$FACT$$ that doctors do something else.

_________________

Kudos [?]: 8765 [1], given: 1139

Manager
Affiliations: IIBA
Joined: 04 Sep 2010
Posts: 55

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 0

Location: India
Schools: HBS, Stanford, Stern, Insead, ISB, Wharton, Columbia
WE 1: Information Technology (Banking and Financial Services)
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jan 2013, 17:13
tcsing wrote:

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!

Even I feel that verb tense is not correct. Can an expert reply on the question posed by first poster ?
_________________

~soaringAlone
~Live fast, die young and leave a marketable corpse behind !!

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1411

Kudos [?]: 153 [0], given: 916

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

### Show Tags

14 Jan 2013, 21:42
first thing

the tense in B make me uaeasy. "are writing " and "are more expensive" can go with past tense

pls explain.

second thing

normally we see

not only........ but also

now in oa in this problem. we see

not..........but also

I infer that "not.....but also" is acceptable

though "not only....but" is not acceptable

is my thinking correct?
_________________

visit my facebook to help me.
on facebook, my name is: thang thang thang

Kudos [?]: 153 [0], given: 916

Senior Manager
Status: Prevent and prepare. Not repent and repair!!
Joined: 13 Feb 2010
Posts: 256

Kudos [?]: 113 [0], given: 282

Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GPA: 3.75
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Mar 2013, 23:55
parallelism and Idiom is what I looked out for. B is the answer choice.
_________________

I've failed over and over and over again in my life and that is why I succeed--Michael Jordan
Kudos drives a person to better himself every single time. So Pls give it generously
Wont give up till i hit a 700+

Kudos [?]: 113 [0], given: 282

Intern
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 12

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

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2013, 11:53
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.

below is the correct choice:

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

MY question is : regarding the subordinate clause in this question:

1. 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

a phenomenon ...should start a subordinate clause(because it is after comma ),but I cannot find the verb after a phenomenon (the subject and verb are inside "THAT" clause)

2. but also by the fact that doctors are writing

but ...should start a subordinate clause ..here also no subject and verb (the subj and verb are inside "THAT"clause)

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 12

VP
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1122

Kudos [?]: 2298 [2], given: 219

Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2013, 12:16
2
KUDOS
ajmalshams 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.

below is the correct choice:

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

MY question is : regarding the subordinate clause in this question:

1. 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

a phenomenon ...should start a subordinate clause(because it is after comma ),but I cannot find the verb after a phenomenon (the subject and verb are inside "THAT" clause)

2. but also by the fact that doctors are writing

but ...should start a subordinate clause ..here also no subject and verb (the subj and verb are inside "THAT"clause)

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, 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 many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs.

This is an example of "appositive modifier". This kind of modifier refer to either a specific noun or to the whole concept of the preceding clause; here because "a phenomenon" is an abstract noun we are in the second scenario, hence this modifier will refer to the whole clause.

1) Yes, it does have a verb
a phenomenon that is explained not just by the

2)Yes, there is a verb
but also by the fact that doctors are writing

the construct of the sentence is: a phenomenon that is explained not just by the fact that X but also by the fact that Y.

Hope it's clear
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

Kudos [?]: 2298 [2], given: 219

VP
Status: Far, far away!
Joined: 02 Sep 2012
Posts: 1122

Kudos [?]: 2298 [2], given: 219

Location: Italy
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.8
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2013, 13:13
2
KUDOS
1
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"

Oh, I got what you mean.

This appositive modifier is actually an appositive phrase, and keep in mind that an appositive modifier is a single noun.
Cesar, the roman emperor, conquered (...)<== this is fine, and " the roman emperor" is not a clause.

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon
now till here you have "a phenomenon", not really explanatory, the next part "that is explained not just (...)" modifies the noun "phenomenon"

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs, a phenomenon(noun) + modifier
the resulting thing is something of this form noun+modifier which is a case of appositive phrase.

Hope I've explained myself well
_________________

It is beyond a doubt that all our knowledge that begins with experience.

Kant , Critique of Pure Reason

Tips and tricks: Inequalities , Mixture | Review: MGMAT workshop
Strategy: SmartGMAT v1.0 | Questions: Verbal challenge SC I-II- CR New SC set out !! , My Quant

Rules for Posting in the Verbal Forum - Rules for Posting in the Quant Forum[/size][/color][/b]

Kudos [?]: 2298 [2], given: 219

Manager
Status: Looking to improve
Joined: 15 Jan 2013
Posts: 174

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 65

GMAT 1: 530 Q43 V20
GMAT 2: 560 Q42 V25
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Jul 2013, 14:44
Just to supplement excellent explanation from Zarrolou

A modifier can be a word (adjective, adverb), phrase (prepositional, noun), or clause (which, that). Here the sentence is using noun modifier.

Hope this helps
_________________

KUDOS is a way to say Thank You

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 65

Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for   [#permalink] 25 Jul 2013, 14:44

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 52 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by