Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
11 Aug 2020, 21:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
64% (00:54) correct
36%
(00:58)
wrong
based on 620
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In 2013, many more serious automobile accidents were caused by drivers under the age of 20 than over it.
A) than
B) than caused
C) than were caused
D) than had been caused
E) than there were caused
Edit: The original sentence was transcribed incorrectly and has been edited. The official explanation is here.
12 Aug 2020, 04:16
Kudos
Bookmarks
sofia2288
Hi Sofia,
We can write “more than three times” as, let’s say, “3.5 times”. So, the comparison starts with “3,5 times AS MANY accidents”. Hence, it should end with another “AS”:
- 3.5 times AS MANY accidents are caused by drivers under 20 AS over it
- 3.5 times AS MANY accidents are caused by drivers under 20 AS by drivers over it
- 3.5 times AS MANY accidents are caused by drivers under 20 AS are caused by drivers over it
A similar official question is here. Below is a spoiler:
- More than three times AS MANY institutions charge under $8,000 AS charge over $16,000.
When “more” and “than” are right next to each other, they don’t compare anything but simply modify/describe “three times”.
“more than three times” = 3.1 times, 3.2 times, or 3.9999 times. For a comparison to work, we need “more A than B”, for example:
- MORE accidents were caused by drives under 20 THAN over it
A similar official question is here. Below is a spoiler:
- MORE babies were born to women over the age of thirty THAN under it.
Here, the parallel elements A and B are “over the age of thirty” and “under it”. Since we have parallel elements, the comparison works. However, when we write “more than three times”, there is no comparison.
The same is true when “as many” and “as” stand next to each other. For example, we can write “as many as 100 times more” as “up to 100 times more”, or just “100 times more” for the sake of simplicity. Likewise, “as many as 20 percent more” can be written as “1.2 times more”. For example:
- As many as 20 percent MORE accidents were caused by drives under 20 THAN over it.
- 1.2 times MORE accidents were caused by drives under 20 THAN over it.
A similar official question is here. Below is a spoiler:
- Pilots at small carriers fly as many as 20 percent MORE hours per month THAN pilots at larger airlines do.
- Pilots at small carriers fly 1.2 times MORE hours per month THAN pilots at larger airlines do.
Now we can easily see that “as many as 20 percent” doesn’t compare anything, but simply modifies/describes “more”.
I think our SC Butler problem simply has a typo.
General Discussion
11 Aug 2020, 21:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
Note: This OE is for the edited version of the question. While I was splicing two questions, I erred.
On the other hand, after you memorize 13,035 idioms and 500 grammar rules (don't do either, please), this question might start to seem tricky.
This trickiness is not helped when the, ahem, transcriber, who was trying to construct a good question for you, spliced two questions incorrectly.
[LARGE SWEAR WORD.]
Thank goodness for JonShukhrat , because I haven't had time to check the boards.
• Which items are involved in this comparison?
Are automobile accidents being compared to drivers?
Are drivers being compared to other drivers?
Or are drivers being compared to the ages of other drivers?
None of the above.
The sentence compares drivers under the age of 20 to drivers over the age of 20.
• How do we know which items are being compared?
→ look at the word(s) to the right of than.
→ we see it
Look at the LHS, before than.
→ On the other side of the comparison only one noun is singular.
→ the singular pronoun it must refer to the age of 20
So we have
In 2013, many more serious automobile accidents were caused by drivers under the age of 20 than overit [the age of 20].
If I were to flesh this sentence out, I would write:
In 2013, many more serious automobile accidents were caused by drivers under the age of 20 than were caused by drivers over the age of 20.
The right hand element of the comparison is the age of 20 ( = it).
Hundreds of threads are dedicated to parallelism and ellipsis or substitution.
As JonShukhrat notes, three official questions [SPOILER ALERT] that are similar to this one can
A similar official question is here, here, and here
Ron Purewal describes a couple of fairly similar question here.
• Split #1: Obvious lack of parallelism: D and E
The RHS of D is than there were caused over it.
→ on the LHS of than in (D) we do not find any there were structure to which this option would be parallel.
→ Nor could we find any; the underlined portion already contains the passive construction, were caused . . . than
The LHS does not use there were as does the RHS. Not parallel.
Option E, than had been caused, lacks verb parallelism.
→ No reason exists to switch tenses to past perfect, the past of the past
→ The sentence is talking about two sets of data from the same year; the two sets of crashes happened during the same time period.
The use of past perfect is not parallel with were caused by
Eliminate D and E
• Split #2 - Perhaps less obvious lack of parallelism: B and C
In the end, we need to be comparing drivers under the age of 20 to drivers over the age of 20
→ Option B fails to make this comparison
(B): In 2013, many more serious automobile accidents were caused by drivers under the age of 20 than caused over it.
→ now the RHS is caused over [the age of 20]
→ the LHS and RHS are not parallel.
it = drivers over the age of 20 = drivers ABC
the pertinent part of the sentence: ... more accidents were caused by drivers under the age of 20 than caused over the age of 20.
I don't even know what "caused over the age of 20" means in the context of this sentence.
The accidents were caused over the drivers?
Option B makes no sense.
(C) looks promising but fails
→ In 2013, many more serious automobile accidents were caused by drivers under the age of 20 than were caused over it
Back to our sentence:
In 2013, many more serious automobile accidents were caused by drivers under the age of 20 than were caused over [the age of 20].
Because we have included the verb but skipped the "by drivers" part, again, it sounds as though the accidents are in an argument with one another about ("over") "the age of 20"?
Takeaway: Make comparisons analysis as simple as possible.
Option A, which seemed a bit odd at the time, maintains the integrity of the logic of the sentence.
The correct answer is A.
Notes
I have corrected the error I created when I spliced two sentences together.
You should never use as . . . than.
(The playing field was somewhat level because every option contains than.
COMMENTS
ShreyKapil08 , welcome to SC Butler.
Wanting to give you all a good question, I took parts of two different questions and put them together
Well handled, everyone.
Kudos to all.
JonShukhrat , thank you for helping—brilliantly, I might add.
Please add a quick analysis or POE at the top of your answer because I have bumped you to Best Community Reply.
Note: This OE is for the edited version of the question. While I was splicing two questions, I erred.
Quote:
This sentence appears short and perhaps even clear-cut.
On the other hand, after you memorize 13,035 idioms and 500 grammar rules (don't do either, please), this question might start to seem tricky.
This trickiness is not helped when the, ahem, transcriber, who was trying to construct a good question for you, spliced two questions incorrectly.
[LARGE SWEAR WORD.]
Thank goodness for JonShukhrat , because I haven't had time to check the boards.
• Which items are involved in this comparison?
Are automobile accidents being compared to drivers?
Are drivers being compared to other drivers?
Or are drivers being compared to the ages of other drivers?
None of the above.
The sentence compares drivers under the age of 20 to drivers over the age of 20.
• How do we know which items are being compared?
→ look at the word(s) to the right of than.
→ we see it
Look at the LHS, before than.
→ On the other side of the comparison only one noun is singular.
→ the singular pronoun it must refer to the age of 20
So we have
In 2013, many more serious automobile accidents were caused by drivers under the age of 20 than over
If I were to flesh this sentence out, I would write:
In 2013, many more serious automobile accidents were caused by drivers under the age of 20 than were caused by drivers over the age of 20.
The right hand element of the comparison is the age of 20 ( = it).
Hundreds of threads are dedicated to parallelism and ellipsis or substitution.
As JonShukhrat notes, three official questions [SPOILER ALERT] that are similar to this one can
A similar official question is here, here, and here
Ron Purewal describes a couple of fairly similar question here.
• Split #1: Obvious lack of parallelism: D and E
The RHS of D is than there were caused over it.
→ on the LHS of than in (D) we do not find any there were structure to which this option would be parallel.
→ Nor could we find any; the underlined portion already contains the passive construction, were caused . . . than
The LHS does not use there were as does the RHS. Not parallel.
Option E, than had been caused, lacks verb parallelism.
→ No reason exists to switch tenses to past perfect, the past of the past
→ The sentence is talking about two sets of data from the same year; the two sets of crashes happened during the same time period.
The use of past perfect is not parallel with were caused by
Eliminate D and E
• Split #2 - Perhaps less obvious lack of parallelism: B and C
In the end, we need to be comparing drivers under the age of 20 to drivers over the age of 20
→ Option B fails to make this comparison
(B): In 2013, many more serious automobile accidents were caused by drivers under the age of 20 than caused over it.
→ now the RHS is caused over [the age of 20]
→ the LHS and RHS are not parallel.
it = drivers over the age of 20 = drivers ABC
the pertinent part of the sentence: ... more accidents were caused by drivers under the age of 20 than caused over the age of 20.
I don't even know what "caused over the age of 20" means in the context of this sentence.
The accidents were caused over the drivers?
Option B makes no sense.
(C) looks promising but fails
→ In 2013, many more serious automobile accidents were caused by drivers under the age of 20 than were caused over it
Back to our sentence:
In 2013, many more serious automobile accidents were caused by drivers under the age of 20 than were caused over [the age of 20].
Because we have included the verb but skipped the "by drivers" part, again, it sounds as though the accidents are in an argument with one another about ("over") "the age of 20"?
Takeaway: Make comparisons analysis as simple as possible.
Option A, which seemed a bit odd at the time, maintains the integrity of the logic of the sentence.
The correct answer is A.
Notes
I have corrected the error I created when I spliced two sentences together.
You should never use as . . . than.
(The playing field was somewhat level because every option contains than.
COMMENTS
ShreyKapil08 , welcome to SC Butler.
Wanting to give you all a good question, I took parts of two different questions and put them together
Well handled, everyone.
Kudos to all.
JonShukhrat , thank you for helping—brilliantly, I might add.
Please add a quick analysis or POE at the top of your answer because I have bumped you to Best Community Reply.
