It is currently 23 Oct 2017, 23:07

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
MBA Section Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4497

Kudos [?]: 17103 [2], given: 1963

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2017, 10:53
2
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
13
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

62% (01:39) correct 38% (02:04) wrong based on 472 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 53: Sentence Correction


Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS
For All QOTD Questions Click Here


In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.

A. In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.

B. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies’ asset growth was fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly double that of 2002.

C. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth in the early 2000s, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice that of 2002.

D. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.

E. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies’ assets grew rapidly, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice the number they had in 2002.

Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

My GMAT Resources
V30-V40: How to do it! | GMATPrep SC | GMATPrep CR | GMATPrep RC | Critical Reasoning Megathread | CR: Numbers and Statistics | CR: Weaken | CR: Strengthen | CR: Assumption | SC: Modifier | SC: Meaning | SC: SV Agreement | RC: Primary Purpose | PS/DS: Numbers and Inequalities | PS/DS: Combinatorics and Coordinates

My MBA Resources
Everything about the MBA Application | Over-Represented MBA woes | Fit Vs Rankings | Low GPA: What you can do | Letter of Recommendation: The Guide | Indian B Schools accepting GMAT score | Why MBA?

My Reviews
Veritas Prep Live Online

Kudos [?]: 17103 [2], given: 1963

Expert Post
3 KUDOS received
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
G
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1054

Kudos [?]: 1622 [3], given: 404

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2017, 10:55
3
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Quote:
A. In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.

"They" really doesn't work very well here. Sure, we intuitively understand that "they" refers back to "companies"... except that "companies" is possessive in this sentence, and a non-possessive pronoun ("they") can't refer back to a possessive noun on the GMAT. At the very least, I've never seen a correct answer that does so -- and this could definitely be clearer. Eliminate (A).

Quote:
B. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies’ asset growth was fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly double that of 2002.

"That" is used as a singular pronoun here, so we need to look for a singular noun that it could refer back to. I don't see a whole lot of options:
"total", I guess? But that really doesn't make much sense. (For more on the GMAT's many uses of "that", click here.)

Plus, we still have the same pronoun issue as in (A). Eliminate (B).

Quote:
C. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth in the early 2000s, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice that of 2002.

"They" works a little bit better, but "that of" still doesn't make any sense. (C) is out.

Quote:
D. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.

This looks fine! We're legitimately comparing the number of subsidiaries now, and the pronoun issues have been cleaned up. Keep (D).

Quote:
E. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies’ assets grew rapidly, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice the number they had in 2002.

The comparison at the end is incredibly wordy, and that's not necessarily the end of the world, but (D) is clearly better. Plus, we're back to the same pronoun issue as in (A) and (B). So (E) is gone, and (D) is the correct answer.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor at www.gmatninja.com | GMAT blog |food blog | Friendly warning: I'm really bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99... in any section order

YouTube verbal webinars:
"Next-level" GMAT pronouns | Uses of "that" on the GMAT | Parallelism and meaning | Simplifying GMAT verb tenses

Kudos [?]: 1622 [3], given: 404

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 482

Kudos [?]: 121 [1], given: 126

Re: QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2017, 11:30
1
This post received
KUDOS
In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.

A. In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002. -Unidiomatic. Growth of the assets is correct idiom.

B. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies’ asset growth was fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly double that of 2002. -Double is not used when there is a comparision. We need twice.

C. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth in the early 2000s, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice that of 2002. - Twice that is wrong in this context.

D. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002. -CORRECT.

E. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies’ assets grew rapidly, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice the number they had in 2002. -The adverb "rapidly" and adjective "rapid" could have been avoided. They are redundant.


Please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kudos if it helps!
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

Helpful links:
1. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation

Kudos [?]: 121 [1], given: 126

VP
VP
User avatar
G
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1073

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 535

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: 314 Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Re: QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2017, 11:45
Imo E

We are comparing number so E is better .
D compares number to subsidiary
_________________

We are more often frightened than hurt; and we suffer more from imagination than from reality

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 535

Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 18 Aug 2016
Posts: 512

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 123

GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2017, 11:46
souvik101990 wrote:

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 53: Sentence Correction


Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS
For All QOTD Questions Click Here


In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.

A. In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.

B. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies’ asset growth was fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly double that of 2002.

C. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth in the early 2000s, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice that of 2002.

D. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.

E. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies’ assets grew rapidly, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice the number they had in 2002.

Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.


I will stick to A considering that the decision was not rapidly taken :(
_________________

We must try to achieve the best within us

Thanks
Luckisnoexcuse

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 123

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 26 Jun 2013
Posts: 91

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 41

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, International Business
Schools: ISB '19, IIMA , IIMB
GMAT 1: 590 Q42 V29
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Retail Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2017, 11:50
I think its D as clauses separated by a colon (:) should refer the same subject (companies...they)
_________________

Remember, if it is a GMAT question, it can be simplified elegantly.

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 41

1 KUDOS received
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 06 Jul 2016
Posts: 412

Kudos [?]: 118 [1], given: 99

Location: Singapore
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2017, 11:55
1
This post received
KUDOS
souvik101990 wrote:

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 53: Sentence Correction


Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS
For All QOTD Questions Click Here


In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.

A. In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.

B. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies’ asset growth was fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly double that of 2002.

C. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth in the early 2000s, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice that of 2002.

D. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.

E. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies’ assets grew rapidly, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice the number they had in 2002.

Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.


This question was something.

A - 'they' has no antecedent as companies' is a possessive noun so it cannot refer to companies. Out.
B - Same as A.
C - Twice that of 2002 is incorrect. Out.
D - 'they' and 'their' refer back to ten largest companies. + 'twice as many as in 2002' correct compares the subsidiaries in 2002 Vs. the subsidiaries in 2011.
E - E suffers from the same issues as A & B.

D is the correct answer. Waiting for the OA
_________________

Put in the work, and that dream score is yours!

Kudos [?]: 118 [1], given: 99

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
S
Joined: 31 Mar 2017
Posts: 37

Kudos [?]: 3 [1], given: 15

GMAT 1: 710 Q45 V42
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V39
GPA: 3.73
CAT Tests
QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jul 2017, 18:36
1
This post received
KUDOS
A, B and E are all out for pronoun error. "THEY" do not have a clear antecedent as "THEY" do not refer to companies' assets but should refer to the companies themselves.

The difference in C and D is a comparison parallelism issue.

C. "they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice that of 2002" - subsidiaries "in" is not parallel to "that of"....you cannot say nearly twice "subsidiaries of 2002"

D - "they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice the number they had in 2002" - Correctly compares the number of subsidiaries in 2011 to the number of subsidiaries in 2002

The answer is D

Kudos [?]: 3 [1], given: 15

2 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 02 May 2016
Posts: 82

Kudos [?]: 32 [2], given: 206

Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship
GRE 1: 317 Q163 V154
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jul 2017, 07:00
2
This post received
KUDOS
arvind910619 wrote:
Imo E

We are comparing number so E is better .
D compares number to subsidiary



Here is why E is wrong (assuming you have eliminated A, B, and C)
In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies’ assets grew rapidly, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice the number they had in 2002.

Identify the Subject and Verb pair: Assets is the subject. Is this sentence correct: "Fuelled by asset's rapid expansion into new lines of business"? No. Also, consider this after semicolon: "Assets had a total of 592 subsidiaries....". No!!! Companies had subsidiaries.
Hence, E is out.
D is the answer.
:)

Kudos [?]: 32 [2], given: 206

Top Contributor
1 KUDOS received
Retired Moderator
User avatar
P
Status: worked for Kaplan's associates, but now on my own, free and flying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 4288

Kudos [?]: 7934 [1], given: 364

Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jul 2017, 07:16
1
This post received
KUDOS
Top Contributor
MadaraU wrote:

Quote:
I rejected B because for following reason

b) the elaborate bowers of sticks and twigs that the males build and decorate with flowers and other vegetation in order to attract females

That is right next to noun twigs so it should modify twigs. Although if there was comma in between (shown as below), then I would have picked B without any doubt.

b) the elaborate bowers of sticks and twigs , that the males build and decorate with flowers and other vegetation in order to attract females

Can you someone please shed some light on this matter


Original B: The bowerbirds of Australia derive their name from the fact that the males build elaborate bowers of sticks and twigs that the males build and decorate with flowers and other vegetation in order to attract females, decorating them with flowers and other vegetation in a display of courtship.


Your version: The bowerbirds of Australia derive their name from the elaborate bowers of sticks and twigs, that the males build and decorate with flowers and other vegetation in order to attract females, decorating them with flowers and other vegetation in a display of courtship.

You can see the meaning goes awry with the introduction of the comma before that. When you put the comma, then the content between the two commas is rendered inessential and should not alter the intended meaning of the main sentence. If you remove the modifier, then the sentence reads:
The bowerbirds of Australia derive their name from the elaborate bowers of sticks and twigs decorating them with flowers and other vegetation in a display of courtship.
Now, who is decorating whom or what? It looks as though sticks and twigs or bowers of sticks and twigs are decorating the birds (them)
We can now see how weird the meaning changes. Logically, we know that the birds cannot build sticks and twigs but only bowers. Therefore, B is quite ok

HTH
_________________

“Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher” – a Japanese proverb.
9884544509

Kudos [?]: 7934 [1], given: 364

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 03 May 2014
Posts: 24

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 43

Re: QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jul 2017, 07:37
Typical GMAT question with so much of obscured structure.
After reading few times, used split - "nearly twice as many as in" to narrow down to A and D. D is more concise and clear. Answer D.

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 43

Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Status: GMAT...one last time for good!!
Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Posts: 70

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 18

Location: India
Concentration: General Management
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V34
GPA: 3.5
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jul 2017, 08:53
Option A,B,E can be eliminated basis the pronoun reference of 'they' to 'assets' This comparison doesnt make sense.
So the comparison is between C and D.

C. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth in the early 2000s, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice that of 2002.
Here 'the nation's' is redundant,..In South Korea, the ten largest companies experienced.... this would have been better. Verb+ed 'fueled' modifies 'the early 2000's' which again doesnt make sense.

'that of' is wrong. 'the number in' would have been better.

Option D is the winner

In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.

A. In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.

B. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies’ asset growth was fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly double that of 2002.

C. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth in the early 2000s, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice that of 2002.

D. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.

E. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies’ assets grew rapidly, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice the number they had in 2002.
_________________

Kudos for a correct solution :)

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 18

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 14 Jun 2017
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 37

GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jul 2017, 10:48
There was supposed to be an expert reply to this but its missing

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 37

Expert Post
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
G
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1054

Kudos [?]: 1622 [0], given: 404

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Re: QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jul 2017, 10:23
jenks88 wrote:
There was supposed to be an expert reply to this but its missing


It's there -- right below the original post.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor at www.gmatninja.com | GMAT blog |food blog | Friendly warning: I'm really bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99... in any section order

YouTube verbal webinars:
"Next-level" GMAT pronouns | Uses of "that" on the GMAT | Parallelism and meaning | Simplifying GMAT verb tenses

Kudos [?]: 1622 [0], given: 404

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 13 Jun 2017
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Sep 2017, 08:48
Can someone explain why "that" does not make sense in choice c? I am of the belief that "that of" = total of

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Expert Post
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
G
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1054

Kudos [?]: 1622 [0], given: 404

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Re: QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Sep 2017, 08:50
nafrank112 wrote:
Can someone explain why "that" does not make sense in choice c? I am of the belief that "that of" = total of


In theory, it would make sense for "that of" to refer back to "total", since "total" is the nearest singular noun. So here's (C) again, with "that of" replaced by "total of":

    In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth in the early 2000s, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice the total of 2002.

It's not horrible, but it certainly isn't great, either. It seems awfully weird to say "the total of 2002" in this case, partly because it sounds like the year is somehow possessing the total. More importantly: notice the phrase "total of 592 subsidiaries" earlier in the sentence. If we follow that with the phrase "total of 2002", it sounds like we might be trying to say that there are a total of 2002 subsidiaries, and that makes no sense at all.

Again, this isn't a totally heinous crime, and you could probably hold your nose and pick (C) if there weren't any better alternatives. But the phrase "total of 2002" is just shaky enough that it should at least make you hesitate a little bit.

I hope this helps!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor at www.gmatninja.com | GMAT blog |food blog | Friendly warning: I'm really bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99... in any section order

YouTube verbal webinars:
"Next-level" GMAT pronouns | Uses of "that" on the GMAT | Parallelism and meaning | Simplifying GMAT verb tenses

Kudos [?]: 1622 [0], given: 404

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jan 2016
Posts: 200

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 63

Re: QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Oct 2017, 03:32
gmatexam439 wrote:
In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.

A. In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002. -Unidiomatic. Growth of the assets is correct idiom.

B. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies’ asset growth was fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly double that of 2002. -Double is not used when there is a comparision. We need twice.

C. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth in the early 2000s, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice that of 2002. - Twice that is wrong in this context.

D. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002. -CORRECT.

E. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies’ assets grew rapidly, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice the number they had in 2002. -The adverb "rapidly" and adjective "rapid" could have been avoided. They are redundant.


Please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kudos if it helps!


Hi, option D also has rapid asset growth, fuel by rapid expansion. Why is that not considered redundant like E?

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 63

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 20 Jan 2016
Posts: 200

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 63

Re: QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Oct 2017, 03:33
I am still confused after reading all the explanations. Why is there no pronoun ambiguity in option D like the other options? How can one say that 'they' and 'their' refers back to the companies in option D but not in other sentences? I don't see the difference :(

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 63

Re: QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s   [#permalink] 06 Oct 2017, 03:33
Display posts from previous: Sort by

QOTD: In South Korea in the early 2000s

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.