Since 1975 so many people have been moving to Utah such that Mormons

Since 1975 so many people have been moving to Utah such that Mormons who were once 75 percent of the population are now only accounting for half of it.



Split 1# : “Only accounting for half” Vs “Accounting for only half”
Only should modify Half not account or accounting. Only accounting implies, Mormons could have done something great but they only account. So option A and D are incorrect.
Split 2 # : “Are now accounting” Vs “now account”
Present progressive is not required. Sentence presents a general fact, I think Simple present is much better choice than Simple progressive.
Option A, B, C – Incorrect
Split 3 : “Were 75 % population” Vs” represented 75% of population”
One cannot be 75% of population, but it can represent 75% of population. Indians Represent 30 % of Canadian population. We cannot say Indians are 30% of Canadian population. Later is not proper.
So “were 75 % of population” is incorrect
Option A,C incorrect


A. so many people have been moving to Utah such that Mormons who were once 75 percent of the population are now only accounting for half of it -
Incorrect – Split1, 2 , 3
B. many people have been moving to Utah, so Mormons once 75 percent of the population are now accounting for only half
Incorrect – Split 2
C. that many people have been moving to Utah, such that the Mormons that were once 75 percent of the population are now accounting for only half of it Incorrect
Incorrect - split 2,3
D. many people have been moving to Utah such that the Mormons, who once represented 75 percent of the population, now only account for half Incorrect
Incorrect – split 2
E. so many people have been moving to Utah that the Mormons, who once represented 75 percent of the population, now account for only half - Correct

Mdacosta, there's some pretty persistent voices out there saying that you can "ignore the fluff" or "ignore the middleman" between two commas. That's an oversimplification, and not something that you'd want to apply too broadly to GMAT questions.

Don't get me wrong: it can be useful to strip out some modifiers to help you see the sentence structure more clearly. Subject-verb agreement is the most obvious example:

• A bag of peaches, which are delicious fruit grown in the hills of southern Georgia and on the western slope of Colorado, cost more at Whole Foods than at Safeway.

Obviously, it's much easier to spot the error ("A bag... cost" is incorrect) if you "ignore the fluff" ("of peaches" and that whole mess inside the commas).

Thing is, you don't want to permanently and completely ignore that stuff. Absolutely anything in the sentence can impact the meaning, or provide a referent for a pronoun. In the GMATPrep example about Mormons in Utah, the sentence makes perfect sense if you're reading the whole thing, including the stuff inside the commas -- but if you ignore that modifier completely, you'll end up with the wrong answer.

So yes, "ignore the middleman" temporarily to help you understand structure or subject-verb agreement, but don't completely ignore anything when it comes to the meaning of the sentence.

I hope this helps!

I don't think the 75% of the population is the subject of the choices of A, B and C. The subject of those choices is Mormons.


A. so many people have been moving to Utah such that Mormons who were once 75 percent of
the population are now only accounting for half of it >> pronoun error, is it 75% of Utah or population
B. many people have been moving to Utah, so Mormons once 75 percent of the population are
now accounting for only half >> accounting for = responsible for, object caused something >> changes the meaning
C. that many people have been moving to Utah, such that the Mormons that were once 75
percent of the population are now accounting for only half of it >> same error in choice A
D. many people have been moving to Utah such that the Mormons, who once represented 75
percent of the population, now only account for half >> only is misplaced >> changes the meaning
E. so many people have been moving to Utah that the Mormons, who once represented 75
percent of the population, now account for only half >> meaning intact, no error.

The sentence tests usage of 2 correct idiomatic expressions

1. So X that Y { Answers the question why }
2. Account for {gives a satisfactory record of something}


A. so many people have been moving to Utah such that Mormons who were once 75 percent of the population are now only accounting for half of it
B. many people have been moving to Utah, so Mormons once 75 percent of the population are now accounting for only half
C. that many people have been moving to Utah, such that the Mormons that were once 75 percent of the population are now accounting for only half of it
D. many people have been moving to Utah such that the Mormons, who once represented 75 percent of the population, now only account for half
E. so many people have been moving to Utah that the Mormons, who once represented 75 percent of the population, now account for only half

So IMHO (E)

Since 1975 so many people have been moving to Utah such that Mormons who were once 75 percent of the population are now only accounting for half of it

A. so many people have been moving to Utah such that Mormons who were once 75 percent of the population are now only accounting for half of it
B. many people have been moving to Utah, so Mormons once 75 percent of the population are now accounting for only half Change in meaning
C. that many people have been moving to Utah, such that the Mormons that were once 75 percent of the population are now accounting for only half of it
D. many people have been moving to Utah such that the Mormons, who once represented 75 percent of the population, now only account for half --> Only is incorrectly modifying Account.
E. so many people have been moving to Utah that the Mormons, who once represented 75 percent of the population, now account for only half

HI Experts,

Please help me with option E, esp. the part "...only half". Although GMATNinja mentioned in one of the comments about data between commas can't be ignored straightaway, how to go ahead in such case. ".. only half" of what?. Any similar examples or posts to have better understanding?

Thanks in advance.

fauji and shobhitkh , you asked, half of what?

Answer: Half of the population [of Utah].
I'm not sure what else the answer could be.
We've just been told that a certain group was 75% of the population, but now that group accounts for only half (50%). Of . . . . the population.

Nothing is wrong with the OA.
*****
Nouns can be "dropped."
Omitting words is called ellipsis.

HERE is a post by Mike McGarry on ellipsis. His examples may help.

When ellipsis is used, the "missing" words are implied.

********
In this question, a fully written out sentence would have been:
. . . Mormons, who once represented 75% of the population, now account for only half of the population.

Those two prepositional phrases are parallel. The second one can be dropped, leaving us with

E) . . . . Mormons, who once represented 75% of the population, now represent only half [implied: of the population].

*********
Omitting words is very common.
Omitting nouns is probably the most straightforward of all omissions.

I bought four cookies and she bought two [cookies].

HERE is an official sentence that
involves a lot of discussion of ellipsis (omitting words).

Here is a thread on ellipsis and substitution. Mike McGarry's links are good.

I can''t think offhand of any other official example that are similar to this one.

If you start with the thread that I listed last, it should get you started.
I hope that helps.

As I wrote in this post (among many others), just because a construction works in one correct answer choice doesn't mean that construction is always correct. And just because a construction is in an incorrect answer choice doesn't mean that it's always wrong.

In this case, we have to ask ourselves whether it's fundamentally unclear to say just "half" instead of "half of it." In this case, I don't think so: in (E), it's hard to interpret "half" to mean anything other than "half of the population."

More broadly, your goal isn't to label each sentence as "wrong" or "right". Instead, the goal is to pick the best choice out of the five available options. If you can eliminate A through D, you've done your job.

I hope this helps!

Since 1975 so many people have been moving to Utah such that Mormons who were once 75 percent of the population are now only accounting for half of it.

Meaning Analysis: Mormons (a group of people) accounted for 75% of the population in Utah. But now they only account for half of this population. Why? Because since 1975 many people have been shifting to Utah.

Sentence Structure:
Since 1975 ("since" is used as a time indicator. Check note #1)
so many people ("so many" is generally used to convey a negative expression. Check note #2)
have been moving (present perfect continuous tense is correct since we have used "since" as a time indicator)
to Utah (more information about where these people are moving to)
such that (as a result)
Mormons (subject)
who were once 75 percent of the population (relative pronoun modifier modifying the subject/noun "Mormons")
are now (verb)
only accounting for half of (here "only" is modifying "accounting for")
it (referring to "population")



The first thing that jumps of to me is the usage of "Such that". We generally use "Such... that" in a way to present a result and the placement of it matters. What follows after "that" is generally the result/outcome of what follows after "such"E.g. "The boy asked such a foolish question that everybody laughed at him." Here "everybody laughed" is the outcome of the boy asking a "foolish question". Keeping this in mind I am not quite happy with the usage in this sentence. Check out CrackVerbalGMAT
post above for further information.



"Accounting for" is used to give a sense of responsibility and this changes the indented meaning. It is not the Mormons but the shift of people to Utah that is responsible for the drop of Mormon population. E.g. Financial Reporting Trends: Accounting for the Pandemic" - wsj

I would also prefer to have "once 75 percent of the population" in a COMMA PAIR. But this is just a preference. If you want you can hold on to (B) until you get a better option.



The dependent clause "that many people have been moving to Utah" is the subject that has no verb. This is a deterministic error. We again see the usage of "Such that" which is incorrectly used out here. Moreover, I don't think we can use "that" to refer to the "Mormons" I guess "who" would be be better. GMATNinja VeritasKarishma egmat abhimahna please could you correct me on this relative pronoun usage.

Notice that "only" now modifies "half" and not "account" and that is perfectly fine. I actually would prefer this modification.



Usage of "such that"



Correct. Notice the usage of "so... that". What follows after "so" is the cause while what follows after "that" is the effect.

Note

#1 When "since" and "within" are used as time indicators we generally use "present perfect tense" (~eGMAT)
E.g. Since 2007, I have been baking cakes.

#2 "so...as" is generally used to convey a negative meaning/comparison.
E.g. He is not so smart as you.

In the official GMAT SC we see that "so many people" moved that the population of the Mormons dropped. This is giving a since of something negative happening.

Correct Choice: (E)

Sometimes, we can cross off nonessential modifiers to make analyzing sentences easier, and sentences should convey basically the same meaning if nonessential modifiers are removed.

At the same time, if a sentence uses a nonessential modifier, then in the sentence as written, that nonessential modifier does exist. So, we have to be careful not to decide a sentence is incorrect because the meaning becomes less clear or a reference no longer works when a nonessential modifier is removed.

For instance, a pronoun can refer to a noun in a nonessential modifier, and we wouldn't decide that the sentence is incorrect because the pronoun has no referent if the nonessential modifier is removed. After all, in the sentence as written, the referent is present.

In this case, the (E) version of the sentence does work as written. So, choice (E) is correct.

In OA E, can we not argue that sentence is incomplete. Half of what....??

I agree E is the only choice which remains . But I am quite skeptical about the usage of "half" it is not clear "half of what". Many official answer choices have been marked off just by this logic

Option E- Doesn't The clause within the comma makes it a non-essential modifier?

But this part should have been a essential modifier?

Hi SolankiDas, our book EducationAisle Sentence Correction Nirvana discusses Essential and non-essential modifiers, their application and examples in significant detail. If you or someone is interested, PM me your email-id; I can mail the corresponding section.

Hello SolankiDas,

We hope this finds you well.

To answer your query, "who once represented 75 percent of the population" is not information that is vital to the core meaning of the sentence - that so many people have been moving to Utah that the Mormons now only make up half the population - rather, this phrase is just extra information that places further emphasis on the core meaning.

We hope this helps.
All the best!
Experts' Global Team

whats wrong with ''who were once 75 percent of the population'' as RPC or restrictive clause

How the meaning is different from using a appositive phrase as in B]

Hi Experts GMATNinja

Can you please explain each option of this question?

I don't agree that "such that" is wrong. I have seen multiple articles on WSJ that are using "such that" without having any noun or noun phrase between "such that".

Thanks for your time.