It is currently 23 Feb 2018, 00:37

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# SC: Employment

Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Mar 2008
Posts: 351

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2008, 01:31
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Could anyone suggest why "lower than" is wrong
Director
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 934

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2008, 06:46
First - it is employment costs - plural noun, so it is not the correct answer.
Second - the statement says, costs rose (this much) slightly less than .... - so less is used with rose, Lower could be used if the statement said employment costs were 2.8 percent, lower than they were.
Third - did is used not were because it refers to the rise and not to the percentage itself.

So A.
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1373

### Show Tags

30 Aug 2008, 10:25
abhijit_sen wrote:
First - it is employment costs - plural noun, so it is not the correct answer.
Second - the statement says, costs rose (this much) slightly less than .... - so less is used with rose, Lower could be used if the statement said employment costs were 2.8 percent, lower than they were.
Third - did is used not were because it refers to the rise and not to the percentage itself.

So A.

percentage is uncountable hence LESS than is APT.
(A) rightly uses they for COSTS

IMO A
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Mar 2008
Posts: 351

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2008, 05:37
OA is A
Re: SC: Employment   [#permalink] 01 Sep 2008, 05:37
Display posts from previous: Sort by