Is this sentence that appeared in The Economist correct?

Dear manhasnoname,

I'm happy to respond.

Here's what I'll say. We live in a time that is very very hard economically for print media. Forty years ago, a large percentage of the population got some portion their news and information about the world from print material. Now, every gets some information online, and few people use print news sources at all. The market has drastically shrunk. Many newspapers have gone under, and many others rely on their online presence for income.

This has been particular hard for the more erudite sources, which, by their very nature, had smaller markets. To hold high literary standards is to appeal only to the most well educated. As the markets of all print material have dried up, there have been marketing pressures to expand the readership, and these marketing pressures often come into direct conflict with the high literary standards. It's a sad state of affairs.

Thus, no news source today is going to hold to the GMAT SC standards 100%. The Economist magazine is better than most.

This particular sentence would NOT be correct on the GMAT at all. In the larger world of grammar, it's in a gray area, not entirely wrong, but for GMAT purposes, it is entirely wrong.

Almost no writing from a profit-driven source will reflect the lofty standards of the GMAT SC. (One exception would be my blog articles on the Magoosh blog.) I would say that many sentences, more than half, in the Economist magazine would adhere to those standards. That's pretty good in this day and age.

If you really want writing in which every single sentence adheres to GMAT SC standards, then you have to read high intellectual writing from, say, the 19th century--- essays of Ralph Waldo Emerson or John Stuart Mill. That's very challenging stuff, but it would really build a sense for the GMAT SC standards.

Does all this make sense?
Mike