In the thirty years since casino gambling has been legal beyond the st

Can you give official explanation for this question?
My reasoning was:
A) In the thirty years since casino gambling has been legal beyond the state of Nevada, per capita wagering for residents of that state has risen markedly, though less than half as high as the amount in those states that received approval. Seems ok lets keep

B) Over thirty years after casino gambling became legal beyond Nevada, per capita wagering for Nevada residents continues to rise markedly, though at less than half the rate as high as in those states approved. Over and after used in same sentence. Redundancy and comma missing

C) Over thirty years after casino gambling became legal beyond Nevada, per capita wagering of Nevada residents continues to increase markedly, though at a rate less than half as high as in any state approved.
similar error as in B

D) In the thirty years since casino gambling was legalized beyond Nevada, per capita wagering of Nevada residents has risen markedly, though at a rate less than half as high as those states approved.
Illogical comparison, rates are compared to states

E) Over thirty years, after casino gambling became legal beyond Nevada, per capita wagering of Nevada residents continues to rise markedly, though at rates less than half as high as in states approved.
sentence seemed ok to me but somehow the last prt compares per capita income with rates
_________________

Sure, its even hard to wrap my head around the explanation. Thanks for your contribution!

Doesn't let me upload images yet (I need to have 5 posts first). I can't copy the text either, so i'll do it later.

By focusing on rate instead of amount, all options other than A distorted the intended meaning of the sentence. That's the rationale I used to justify choosing A.

can you please explain why C is wrong

A) In the thirty years since casino gambling has been legal beyond the state of Nevada, per capita wagering for residents of that state has risen markedly, though less than half as high as the amount in those states that received approval.

B) Over thirty years after casino gambling became legal beyond Nevada, per capita wagering for Nevada residents continues to rise markedly, though at less than half the rate as high as in those states approved.

C) Over thirty years after casino gambling became legal beyond Nevada, per capita wagering of Nevada residents continues to increase markedly, though at a rate less than half as high as in any state approved.

D) In the thirty years since casino gambling was legalized beyond Nevada, per capita wagering of Nevada residents has risen markedly, though at a rate less than half as high as those states approved.

E) Over thirty years, after casino gambling became legal beyond Nevada, per capita wagering of Nevada residents continues to rise markedly, though at rates less than half as high as in states approved.

Over thirty years represent the time has already been passed and the structure followed is after the stated time is over and done already. Whereas According to the passage the statement is meant the time period in which the structure took place. So "IN" is preferred over "OVER". eliminating B,C and E

Among A and D,
Was Legalized depicts the past tense whereas the Has been legalized state that the gambling is still legal. which is what passage is meant to depict.
Hence A is the best Choice.
_________________

1. In the 30 years since + Present perfect --> Eliminate D
2. ", though at less than half the rate": wrong--> eliminate B
3. "though at a rate less than half as high as in any state approved." : wrong comparison. "...less than half as high as" OF WHAT.
"though at rates less than half as high as in states approved." : wrong comparison. same above

---> A

Could you let me know on what basis you chose option A as best choice... in Option A what does pronoun 'those' refers to????????????. I could not find any logical referent to whom it can refer to

Hello Andrew Sir MentorTutoring /AjiteshArun Sir



Usually we say : X has ..since .. (since represents something in the past for reference time)

1. In the thirty years since casino gambling has been legal beyond the state of Nevada- it modifies 30 years.
say: 30 years span ( 1962-1992). The meaning would be :
Gambling was legal anywhere in between 1962 till 1992( not necessarily in 1962, right?)

So the final sentence meaning should be : Am i right?

OR

2. Gambling was legal in 1962. Thus the sentence should be:
In the thirty years since casino gambling has been legal beyond the state of Nevada , per capita wagering for residents of that state has risen markedly.- Here since represents sometime in the past. should not has been wrong here and be written as per below sentence?
( legal happened in past and since need some reference of time in past)

Please clarify my understanding is right.

Thanks!

Hello, imSKR. I will respond directly to your inquiries below.


Almost. If you want to use the year 1962 as a benchmark, then using the present perfect would indicate that casino gambling has been legal outside of Nevada throughout the 1962-1992 period. That is, 1962 marks the first year that such legalization occurred, even if it may not have been in place on 1 January of that year. The part that indicates that per capita wagering has risen markedly is a comparison between figures for 1962 and 1992, NOT between 1974 and 1986, for instance.


If you wanted to use a simple past construct, that would be fine, as in the following:

In the thirty years since casino gambling was made/became legal beyond the state of Nevada, per capita wagering for residents of that state has risen markedly.

It really depends on what you would be aiming to convey. I hope that helps. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.

- Andrew
_________________

This question seems not to be written well. Questions such as this goes against certain aspects and guidelines mentioned in the OG.

1. In the thirty years since casino gambling has been legal beyond the state of Nevada, per capita wagering for residents of that state has risen markedly, though less than half as high as the amount in those states that received approval.

a. "those" states: There is no reference to the pronoun "those" in the sentence. While the gambling has extended beyond the state of Nevada, there is no mention of other states in the sentence.

The Official Guide for GMAT Review, 2015; Question No.: SC 89; Page: 688 - has a reference for this. When "those" does not have an antecedent, it is appropriate that the noun that has been referred is repeated.

Also, logically "those states" that received approval will also include "Nevada". The rate of rise in Nevada cannot be as half high as the rate of rise in Nevada itself.

b. "casino gambling has been legal beyond the state of Nevada" - is a present perfect continuous tense. The word "since" uses a past reference, and as per this sentence construct, there is no past reference as "has been" refers to an ongoing event from the past to the present.

A good grammatical sentence would appear something like this (per OG standard)

In the thirty years since casino gambling was made legal beyond the state of Nevada, per capita wagering for residents of that state has risen markedly, though less than half as high as the amount in any other states that received approval.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________