Organizers claimed that the rally for public health care drew close to

+1 kudo for both of you. This is a very good question.

I just want to elaborate a little bit. According to Ron (instructor at Manhattan Gmat), for numerical quantifiers such as:

level
quantity
number
figure
rate
percentage
proportion

We should use less instead of "fewer" because numerical quantifiers themselves are uncountable.
For examples:
The number of rooms in my house is less than the number of rooms in your house.

Regards.

Dear Ergenekon,
I'm happy to help.

With the issue of countable & uncountable, there are three cases:
I. uncountable - real-world material that doesn't come in discrete units
more water, how much water, much less water, the amount of water
less water, how little water, much less water
II. countable - real-world material that comes in discrete units
more horses, how many horses, many more horses, the number of horses
fewer horses, how few horses, many fewer horses
III. numbers - pure mathematical objects
five is more than three
three is less than five
Even when we are talking about "the number of [real world thing]," the focus is still the number, a number that lives somewhere on the number line. As long as we are somewhere on the number line, we are talking about pure mathematical objects, numbers, and we use "less."

Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

According to my knowledge:
"The number of people is"
"A number of people are"
Please point out any mistake.

In the OA:
(B) "the number of people at the rally to be fewer"
Can "fewer" modify "the number". Shouldn't "the number" be "lower" or "less"?

Dear HumptyDumpty,
On the first point, we are in perfect agreement. If we are talking about what the people are doing, then "a number of people are doing X". If the subject is not the people but the number itself, then "the number of people is divisible by 3."

On the second point, you are totally correct and I was wrong. I updated the question. Thank you for pointing this out.
Mike
_________________

What is wrong with option D; option D presents a perfect parallelism as well.

Organizers claimed that the rally for public health care drew close to half a million people, but the city officials estimated the amount of people at the rally to be less than 300,000.


(B) the number of people at the rally to be less

(D) that the number of people attending the rally was less (event happened in past and thus "was less" properly represents tense in option D )

I am not able to identify any error in D; Experts kindly shed some light.

I got the explanation on Mangoosh:

https://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-idiom ... d-knowing/

Estimate that is not a correct Idiom.

Dear PiyushK,
First of all, just for reference, the name of my company, "Magoosh", has no "n" in it.
We did some research, and revised our statement on the verb "estimate" --- under certain circumstance, estimate can take a "that" clause, although the predominate idiom is still estimate P to be Q. That's an older blog, and I didn't realize we still had a statement on that blog: I went back and edited that blog just now.

I must apologize. I went back and looked at this question, and there was a typo in the question --- it didn't match the TE. Here's how the question should have been:

Organizers claimed that the rally for public health care drew close to half a million people, but the city officials estimated the amount of people at the rally to be less than 300,000.
(A) the amount of people at the rally to be less
(B) the number of people at the rally to be less
(C) the number of people attending the rally at fewer
(D) that the number of people attending the rally was fewer
(E) that the amount of people at the rally was less

Now, it is clear to you that we have only one fully correct answer?

Mike
_________________

Hey Mike,

Thank you for your prompt response and my apologies for that extra n

All right, "estimate that" and "estimate X to be Y" both are correct idiom : noted and updated my list.

Regards

I still dont get why we use less with the number.

Thanks Mike. It makes a perfect sense now. I have never encountered this concept in the gmat before. Am I alone in this?

Hi Mike,

Something about your examples:
five is more than three OR five is greater than three? Or both are correct?!

Dear apolo,
Yes, with numbers, it would be more common to use "greater," but "more" is acceptable in some context. What's tricky is that, when we move from pure mathematical numbers to real-world numbers, we sometimes use "higher."
The melting point of tungsten is higher than that of zinc.
The population of Tokyo is greater than that of SF.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________

Dear Mahmud6,

I'm happy to respond. My friend, for any issue relevant to a particular question, the thread containing this question is the most appropriate place to ask something or make a request concerning that question, much more appropriate than a pm, because everyone studying the thread should see what you ask and my response.

This question has undergone multiple iterations in our Magoosh product. The version that appears at the top now is the version identical to what appears in the Magoosh product in its most up-to-date form.

Let me know if you have any questions.
Mike
_________________

A and E are incorrect. ‘amount’ is for uncountable nouns. People can be counted and so, should be referred to with ‘number’. Also, when it comes to ‘number’ we ‘less’ and ‘more’ is to be used. Not ‘greater’ and ‘fewer’.

So, the correct answer is C.

[quote="PiyushK"]
1) Split #1a: Countable vs. uncountable. We can count people, so we speak of a “number” of people, not an “amount” of people. (A) & (E) make this mistake.

Split #1b: Countable vs. uncountable. We can count people, so it would be fewer people, but here we are talking about “number of people”, and for number we use “less.” (C) & (D) incorrectly use “fewer.”


I need kudos please

Hi phqai,

Could you please provide examples of each kind of quantifier.

Regards
Kunal

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.
_________________