It is currently 25 Nov 2017, 03:03

### 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

# Soaring television costs accounted for more than half the

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2004
Posts: 119

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

Soaring television costs accounted for more than half the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2004, 13:22
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

### HideShow timer Statistics

Soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending in the presidential campagign of 1992, a greater propotion that is was in any previous election
a. same
b. a greater propotion than
c. a greater propotion than they have been
d. which is greater than was so
e. which is greater that is has been

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 97

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

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2004, 13:52
B is probably the most concise of them all.

BTW, I assume the original is "a greater proportion than it was." You could leave it the way it is, but you'd then have to change than it was to than it had been to reflect the sequence (past perfect precedes simple past).

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

Manager
Joined: 02 Apr 2004
Posts: 222

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Location: Utrecht

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2004, 13:57
I agree with B too.

Although I have to say that A and E sound very weird and maybe is an typo mistake.

Regards,

Alex

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2004
Posts: 119

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2004, 17:04
OA given here is C. do you guys think that is correct?

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 97

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

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2004, 18:52
Naah, it would have to be a greater proportion than they HAD been and not...they have been.

Rule: if the main clause is in past tense, the subordinate clause has to be in past tense as well.

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

Senior Manager
Affiliations: CFA Level 2
Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 263

Kudos [?]: 162 [0], given: 0

Location: Hanoi

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2004, 22:02
intr3pid wrote:
Naah, it would have to be a greater proportion than they HAD been and not...they have been.

Rule: if the main clause is in past tense, the subordinate clause has to be in past tense as well.

I prefer B to C. However, C for the OA is fine.

"have been" is OK. The first event "Soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending" is regarded as a point in the past and UPTIL NOW there HAS BEEN no similar event.
_________________

"Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you'r gonna get"

Kudos [?]: 162 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Posts: 590

Kudos [?]: 162 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2004, 00:45
And for "Soaring television costs", I guess, we would need a pronoun of "they" rather than "it".

Kudos [?]: 162 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 214

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 0

Location: US

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2004, 05:00
I am confused about C being the correct choice.

Here what is compared is not the television costs but the propotion of television costs to the total presidential campaign cost. So how can 'they' in choice C refer to television costs. Isn't there an ambiguity in choice C.

I feel that B is the correct answer.

Thanks.

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 214

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 0

Location: US

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2004, 11:44
Can anyone tell me what is the mistake in my reasoning. I feel that the answer should be B and not C.

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 97

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

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2004, 14:14
bigtooth81 wrote:
intr3pid wrote:
Naah, it would have to be a greater proportion than they HAD been and not...they have been.

Rule: if the main clause is in past tense, the subordinate clause has to be in past tense as well.

I prefer B to C. However, C for the OA is fine.

"have been" is OK. The first event "Soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending" is regarded as a point in the past and UPTIL NOW there HAS BEEN no similar event.

If you're comparing TV costs in all the elections uptil NOW, then this argument doesn't make any sense. The real meaning of the sentence is that there hasn't been any comparable event in any of the PREVIOUS elections. Previous from what? From the 2002 election (= now)? 1992 is previous from 2002. If the author wants to say that there has not been any comparable TV spending after 1992, he or she should will use the words following or after or subsequently, and not in the previous.

The following is what you'll say when you're comparing a past event with events happening after the past event:

"Soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending in the presidential campagign of 1992, a greater propotion than in any subsequent/following election."

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

Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 595

Kudos [?]: 283 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2004, 14:35
C costs plural , refrred by they and the comparsion is clear.

Kudos [?]: 283 [0], given: 0

07 Sep 2004, 14:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Soaring television costs accounted for more than half the

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 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®.