tapasgupta wrote:
Since the early 1980's, when proton pump inhibitors were first marketed, the
number of patients newly diagnosed with acid-related diseases
have increased from 1 million a year to nearly 20 million a year, a number that is about twice that of colitis patients.(A)
have increased from 1 million a year to nearly 20 million a year, a number that is about twice that of colitis patients
-- Singular subject
number does not match plural verb
have(B)
have increased from 1 million a year to nearly 20 million a year, a number that is about
twice colitis patients-- Same subject/verb problem as that in A
-- The comparison is not parallel. (B) compares a
number [of patients with ABC] to colitis
patients themselves, not how many per year were diagnosed.
(C) has increased from 1 million a year to nearly 20 million a year, which is about twice the number of patients diagnosed with colitis
(D) has
increased from 1 million
up to nearly 20 million a year, which is about double the number of patients diagnosed with colitis
--
increased up to incorrectly suggests a range of increase: greater than 1 million, no greater than 20 million, and possibly some number in between
-- the patients WERE diagnosed. They can be counted. The final number is known. It is not in a possible range
(E) has
increased from 1 million
up tonearly 20 million a year, about
twice the patients who have colitis
--
increased up to in E has the same problem as D
-- (E) illogically compares 20 million per year [the
NUMBER of patients with acid disease] to
patients, full stop.
Twice the patients is insensible. "Twice the number of patients who have colitis" would work
Please help me with the use of "up to".
Hi
tapasgupta , "increase up to" can be hard.
It may help to think about this sentence in Quant terms.
• exact: increased from 1 million [exact]
to 20 million [exact]
• inexact range: increased from 1 million [exact]
up to an upper limit of 20 million
[inexact: final number could be 2, 11, or 19.2 million; can't be greater than 20 million]
But how can we have a
possible range for a
completed and
single event?
We cannot. We know the final count. That number is not a probability.
In other cases, we occasionally use "increased up to."
See my example about prices of item XYZ below.
Split #1: Subject/verb agreement• The subject is
numberThat subject is followed by a very long prepositional phrase,
of patients newly diagnosed with acid-related diseases•
Number is singular. The verb should be
has, not
haveOptions A and B incorrectly use
have.Eliminate A and B.
Split #2: MEANING"Increase up to" implies a range, a scaling upwards to an upper limit.
Interest rates increased from 3% up to [
as high as] 9% in five years.
-- 9% is the upper limit
-- "up to" number X usually means
as high as X and no higher
-- the interest rate must have increased in different places or at different times or both—
from 3% to some rate that was higher than 3% but no higher than 9%
You cannot have a probable range of numbers in the past
for a number about which you are certain.We are certain about the number of patients diagnosed per year in the past and now.
In the 1980s, the number of patients per year diagnosed with ABC was 1 million.
That number is certain. These patients are countable.
Now that number is 20 million. That number is certain. No range of possibility exists: the figure hit 20 million.
By contrast,
increased up to nonsensically suggests that the number of patients DID increase from 1 million
to any of many
possible not-yet-happened numbers between 1 million and 20 million, inclusive.
"possibly occurred" and "did occur" cannot co-exist simultaneously about the same thing in the past.
Answers D and E illogically suggest that the number of patients diagnosed each year with acid-disease
increased to some number greater than 1 million but no greater than 20 million.
The number did not increase to one of many possible number. The number increased to a certain number: 20 million.
Eliminate D and E
The correct answer is Ctapasgupta , I hope that analysis helps.
* Usage of increase(d) up to
We can talk about semi-discrete prices with "increased up to"
Correct, past tense: Depending on the city in which XYZ was sold, the price of XYZ increased from $10 up to $20 in the last decade.
-- In NYC, the price of XYZ increased from $10 to $20.
-- In New Orleans, the price of XYZ increased from $10 to $15.
That construction is logical.
Correct, speculation or prediction (future):
In five years, the number of patients diagnosed with ABC per year could or will increase from 20 million up to 30 million.
--In five years the number of patients diagnosed with ABC per year could be 21, 24, 29.9, or 30 million. _________________
Welcome back, America.
—Anne Hidalgo, Mayor of Paris
Updated on: 17 Mar 2019, 18:38
45%
(medium)
61%
(01:23)
correct 
close
