One in five Americans who work shorter hours at their job in order to

Hello, NandishSS. Yes, this is a confusing question, but I will do my best to get to the bottom of each answer choice. How about we have a look?


I have highlighted the beginning of the who clause to indicate that although we are dealing with a singular subject of one in the main clause, the relative pronoun who after Americans triggers a plural subject-verb agreement. The idea is that we are talking about a group of Americans who do something, singling out a member of that group for discussion. Crucially, without the relative pronoun (i.e. who), the sentence would require a singular subject-verb agreement instead. Please see this post on the topic, a collection of dedicated notes originally from Ron Purewal. Thus, one in five Americans who work... save is absolutely fine. The one debatable point I find in this option is the use of the singular job, which makes it sound as though we are referring back to the individual, an especially odd time to do so, since it follows the plural pronoun their. I would not get rid of this answer choice right away, but I would keep looking.


Okay, this is another tricky answer, but one that can be disproved with a closer look at subject-verb agreement. You might recall that an -ing modifier without a comma modifies the preceding noun, so their is correct to agree with Americans. But then we get saves later on, and if we are talking about Americans as a group in the rest of the sentence, the earlier part, then we need the verb to be save for the sake of consistency. By using saves, the sentence shifts the focus back to the individual, which makes it seem as if their refers—incorrectly—to that same individual. Even though gender-neutral pronouns are in vogue right now, at least in the United States, standardized grammar rules tend to be slower to catch up, and as of this writing, their must still refer to a plural subject.


Yet another arcane grammar rule is on display here. After what I wrote above for choice (A), how could I reject this option for the same plural subject-verb agreement? It all has to do with the article the at the head of the sentence, which is used to indicate the one and only, a singular subject. So, despite the one in five... who construct, the the overrides everything. The agreement must be the one in five Americans who works.


Sure, there are more words, but the meaning here is crystal clear, and the subject-verb agreement is perfect.


Another easy elimination, this time on the grounds that the sentence, without a comma after job creates a run-on. We do not even have to consider whether anything else is off. Take it as a gift, given some of the other choices.

There you have it. I hope that helps clarify your areas of concern. Choice (D) is the best of the bunch, but whoever designed the original question must have been combing through the back of some unabridged and quite lengthy grammar guide.

Thank you for tagging me on this one, and best of luck with your studies.

- Andrew

Hi AndrewN

I was able to narrow down to A and D. S-V agreement is correct in both. As the GMAT generally prefers a more succinct answer choice, I went for A.

Having read your explanation, I have a query : You mentioned the use of "job" may not be correct in A. But the singular "job" is used in option D as well.
So what exactly makes A inferior ? Is it because option D uses "a job" ? Maybe that makes it free from subtle errors? From a grammatical standpoint, I couldn't point out any glaring errors in option A.

Hello expert,
This question really confused me. I found the official explanation is different from what the expert said.
Especially in D, it uses “at a job” while the subject and verb use plural form, so experts could you illuminate each choice? Much thanks.

Good question, Namangupta1997. The difference, believe it or not, comes down to what precedes the word job: a job conveys only that the Americans in question are working; their job suggests either that these Americans share the same occupation, or, if that interpretation is not intended, that an s is missing from the end of the word. People work at their [respective] jobs, not at their job. The generic article a is a safer bet, in terms of meaning.

Thank you for thinking to follow up. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

I agree, I think I would prefer plural 'jobs' in D. However, we have to take the best of what is given.

Also, I think Andrew's explanation above is prudent:



One thing I will add about A-C that I don't think I've seen mentioned (though I might have missed it in my quick scan through the long discussions on this topic) is that there is some meaning ambiguity with the modifier of the 'one in five americans.'

If I say "One in five Americans who work shorter hours at their job to provide care..." (or the slight variations of this in A-C), am I looking at the group of ALL AMERICANS WHO WORK SHORTER HOURS AT THEIR JOB TO PROVIDE CARE, and taking one out of five of THEM?

OR, am I looking at *all* American workers, and saying '20% of those workers work shorter hours to provide care.'

Basically, is the meaning:

"20% of the (Americans who work shorter hours to provide care) save society millions"

OR

"20% of Americans--the number of people who work shorter hours to provide care--save society millions."

A, B, C are ambiguous on this (I sort of lean towards it meaning the former!)... but truth be told it seems like both are wrong! I don't think we're saying *only* 20% of the short-hour-working-to-provide-care group saves millions, I think we're saying that whole *group* saves millions. I also don't think we really mean to say that a full 20% of ALL AMERICANS is the group of people who work shorter hours.

D clears up both issues. It points out we're talking about 20% of all *employees*, not 20% of all *Americans*; it specifies these people are the group that work shorter hours to provide care; and thus these people save society millions.

ReedArnoldMPREP Yes your explanation is reasonable. I was stuck between A and D, and I also found they are in different meaning. But nobody mentioned the issue of the meaning, so I thought I were wrong. Thank you expert.

Hello, Mavisdu1017. You made the sort of request I like to see in the forum. You harbored a suspicion about something, but no one had touched on the matter, so you sought an Expert opinion. Keep in mind, Experts may not always see the same issues in a given set of answer choices. It does not make one Expert right or wrong when someone else comes along and points something out. There is often more than one way to look at (in this case) a sentence. I happen to enjoy it when some new consideration is added to the dialogue for all to read and ponder.

Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

AndrewN hello expert, in this case honestly I couldn’t be convinced to rule out A just because “their job”, cuz in D “job” is also in singular form, so I must have to find another rationale to justify D.
But I don’t mean to judge any Expert is right or wrong, and I’m not to offend you. It is just because this expert think the the same with me, that’s why I said “reasonable”. Pls understand.

I know there are a number of discussions on (B), but I still don't get why Subject-verb agreement in B is wrong.

Isn't it okay to write "saves" for "one in five Americans"?

"working shorter hours at their jobs in order to provide care for an elderly relative" seems to modify "five Americans" but starting with "saves," the sentence is about "one in five Americans." 1 in 5 saves society millions of dollars. Any ideas?

Agree with your interpretation. There is a big meaning issue with B. It suggests that out of every five Americans who work shorter hours at their jobs in order to provide care for an elderly relative, only one American (out of five) saves society millions of dollars.

This meaning is clearly absurd.

Would you please clarify? To me, it makes sense that 1 in 5 Americans saves money for the society. We aren't talking about "the one in five Americans." That meaning is indeed absurd. But one in every five Americans can collectively save money.

Would you please clarify? To me, it makes sense that 1 in 5 Americans saves money for the society. We aren't talking about "the one in five Americans." That meaning is indeed absurd. But one in every five Americans can collectively save money.

On the other hand, (B) seems wrong because its scope of "Americans" is limited to the ones who are working shorter hours to serve the elders vs. the original meaning: that 1/5 of all employees represent those working shorter hours to care for the elders. So (B) seems to double count by saying 1 in 5 Americans who are X vs. 1 in 5 Americans are X.

AndrewN - I know you've written extensive posts on this topic, but would you please confirm if I'm thinking about this correctly?