NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 25 Apr 2024, 06:22 It is currently 25 Apr 2024, 06:22
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
   1   2 
Tags:
Difficulty: 505-555 Levelx   Parallelismx   Verb Tense/Formx                                 
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
B
felipet190
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Jun 2020
Posts: 7
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in [#permalink] New post   04 Aug 2020, 20:41
GMATNinja wrote:
singh_amit19 wrote:
The Official Guide for GMAT Review 2017 Practice Question Question No.: SC 766 Page: 702


Again, we need parallel construction. We have "not just because of x, but because doctors did y." Those are not parallel. For proper parallel construction, we'd need, "not just because of x, but because of y," or "not just because doctors did x, but because doctors did y."


Hi Sempai GMATNinja
I have a question - it seems like you're quoting the GMAT Official Guide 2020 with your explanation here, but I believe this to be a typo. You say that the proper construction is "not just because of x, but because of y," However, the correct answer has the following form: "not just because of x, but also because of y,"
Doesn't the proper idiomatic expression require the use of the word "also" here? Thank you!
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6920
Own Kudos [?]: 63665 [0]
Given Kudos: 1773
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in [#permalink] New post   02 Sep 2020, 12:46
Expert Reply
felipet190 wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
singh_amit19 wrote:
The Official Guide for GMAT Review 2017 Practice Question Question No.: SC 766 Page: 702


Again, we need parallel construction. We have "not just because of x, but because doctors did y." Those are not parallel. For proper parallel construction, we'd need, "not just because of x, but because of y," or "not just because doctors did x, but because doctors did y."


Hi Sempai GMATNinja
I have a question - it seems like you're quoting the GMAT Official Guide 2020 with your explanation here, but I believe this to be a typo. You say that the proper construction is "not just because of x, but because of y," However, the correct answer has the following form: "not just because of x, but also because of y,"
Doesn't the proper idiomatic expression require the use of the word "also" here? Thank you!

Is it that hard to believe that two separate sources would choose "x" and "y" as variables? :D :D :D The OG explanations aren't produced by the same people who write GMAT questions, and for the most part, I don't bother reading them at all.

And, no, the word "also" is not strictly required. Here's an example from GMAT Prep.
User avatar
B
kashishDhir
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Feb 2021
Posts: 26
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [0]
Given Kudos: 38
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
Send PM
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in [#permalink] New post   20 Jun 2021, 22:49
[quote="singh_amit19"]
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

[spoiler=]https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/08/us/spending-on-prescription-drugs-increases-by-almost-19-percent.html

In Option D, If we write- which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but also because doctors are writing
Will that choice would be correct? Also, Can anyone share their opinion if the use of "which" is correct in the above choice?
Here, which can modify "half the increase in spending on prescription drugs". Is it correct?
User avatar
G
ashutosh_73
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Jan 2018
Posts: 178
Own Kudos [?]: 122 [0]
Given Kudos: 79
Send PM
Forum Quiz Mode
Re: In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in [#permalink] New post   09 Aug 2023, 21:15
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

Show Spoiler
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/08/us/spending-on-prescription-drugs-increases-by-almost-19-percent.html

As an aging population coped with arthritis, diabetes and high cholesterol, spending on prescription drugs shot up 18.8 percent last year, to $131.9 billion, a new study shows.

Two dozen products accounted for half the increase, which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but because doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs, the study said. The study was issued today by the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that conducts research on health care issues.



Hi AjiteshArun KarishmaB GMATNinja

Although i got this correct, i still have a doubt:

The N + N-modifier, which is in present progressive form, modifies the whole clause, but the event it modifies has happened in past.
Use of simple present(yellow) i follow, but use of present progressive(green) i don't.
Can present progressive tense be used to denote events started in past events but still ongoing? Isn't Present Perfect Progressive more appropriate here?

Correct OG sentence: 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.

Thanks
Ashutosh
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14822
Own Kudos [?]: 64909 [2]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in [#permalink] New post   09 Aug 2023, 23:48
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
ashutosh_73 wrote:
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

Show Spoiler
https://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/08/us/spending-on-prescription-drugs-increases-by-almost-19-percent.html

As an aging population coped with arthritis, diabetes and high cholesterol, spending on prescription drugs shot up 18.8 percent last year, to $131.9 billion, a new study shows.

Two dozen products accounted for half the increase, which occurred not just because drugs are becoming more expensive but because doctors are writing many more prescriptions for higher-cost drugs, the study said. The study was issued today by the National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group that conducts research on health care issues.



Hi AjiteshArun KarishmaB GMATNinja

Although i got this correct, i still have a doubt:

The N + N-modifier, which is in present progressive form, modifies the whole clause, but the event it modifies has happened in past.
Use of simple present(yellow) i follow, but use of present progressive(green) i don't.
Can present progressive tense be used to denote events started in past events but still ongoing? Isn't Present Perfect Progressive more appropriate here?

Correct OG sentence: 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.

Thanks
Ashutosh


The action of drugs becoming more expensive is an ongoing one. They were getting more expensive in 2000 and are getting more expensive today too.
The impact that this action had on the figures of year 2000 is this - a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in spending on prescription drugs
This year also it will have some impact but that is beyond our scope.

Take another example:

Last year, most countries faced an extremely severe summer, a phenomenon explained by the fact that the Earth is getting warmer because of greenhouse gases.

The fact is that the Earth is getting warmer. We are discussing its impact on last year's summer.
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
In 2000, a mere two dozen products accounted for half the increase in [#permalink]
09 Aug 2023, 23:48
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions