Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
16 Mar 2022, 00:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
64% (01:31) correct
36%
(01:52)
wrong
based on 545
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The claim of organizers was that the rally for public healthcare drew close to half a million people, compared with city officials’ estimation, the number of people attending the rally at fewer than 300,000.
(A) The claim of organizers was that the rally for public healthcare drew close to half a million people, compared with city officials’ estimation, the number of people attending the rally at fewer than 300,000
(B) Organizers claimed that the rally for public healthcare drew close to half a million people, but the city officials estimated the number of people at the rally to be less than 300,000
(C) The rally for public healthcare drew close to half a million, as organizers claimed, although less than 300,000 were there, as the city officials estimated
(D) It was the claim of the organizers that the rally for public healthcare drew close to half a million people, unlike the city officials, who estimated the number of people at the rally to be fewer than 300,000
(E) Organizers claimed that the rally for public healthcare drew close to half a million people, compared to the estimation of city officials that the number of people who attended the rally was fewer than 300,000
(A) The claim of organizers was that the rally for public healthcare drew close to half a million people, compared with city officials’ estimation, the number of people attending the rally at fewer than 300,000
(B) Organizers claimed that the rally for public healthcare drew close to half a million people, but the city officials estimated the number of people at the rally to be less than 300,000
(C) The rally for public healthcare drew close to half a million, as organizers claimed, although less than 300,000 were there, as the city officials estimated
(D) It was the claim of the organizers that the rally for public healthcare drew close to half a million people, unlike the city officials, who estimated the number of people at the rally to be fewer than 300,000
(E) Organizers claimed that the rally for public healthcare drew close to half a million people, compared to the estimation of city officials that the number of people who attended the rally was fewer than 300,000
16 Mar 2022, 00:06
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
Split #1: countable nouns vs. numbers
This is a very tricky topic.
If we are talking about uncountable nouns, nouns for which we would ask “how much?,” we use “less”—less time, less money, less water, less humor, less freedom.
If we are talking about countable nouns, nouns for which we would ask “how many?,” we use “fewer”—fewer windows, fewer teachers, fewer books, fewer ideas, fewer chances.
BUT, if we are talking about pure numbers, residents of the number line, we use “less”—for example, 3 is less than the square root of 10.
This final rule includes instances in which we talk about “the number of” some real-world countable thing, such as people attending a rally.
We talk about “fewer people” but say that “the number of people was less.”
Choice (A): “the number of people … fewer” = incorrect
Choice (B): “the number of people … less” = correct
Choice (C): “less than 300,000 [people]” = iffy
Choice (D): “number of people … fewer” = incorrect
Choice (E): “number of people … fewer” = incorrect
Split #2: Grammatical Construction and contrast
Choice (A) compares a “claim” to an “estimation”—not exactly the same, but not clearly wrong.
The phrasing with “at” is awkward, unidiomatic, and wrong.
This choice is incorrect.
Choice (B) has [independent clause] “but” [independent clause]—a well-constructed contrast.
[KEEP.]
Choice (C) is strange: it contrasts two incompatible factual statements. It can’t be true both that the rally “drew close to half a million” and that “less than 300,000 were there.”
This is grammatically correct but a complete logical impossibility!
This choice is incorrect.
Choice (D) has an illogical comparison: “it was the claim … unlike city officials.”
We have to compare like-to-like, ideas to ideas, or people to people.
This choice is incorrect.
Choice (E) is one of the longest answer choices.
The first half is flawless. Participles can be noun-modifiers or verb-modifiers, so the participle “compared to” can be understood as applying to the verb “claimed”: even so, comparing this to “estimation,” a noun, is awkward.
The entire second half is extremely clunky and indirect: changing the verb “to estimate” to the noun “estimation” removes any active punch this section had.
This choice is incorrect.
The only possible choice is (B).
MY COMMENTS
kungfury42 , please see Mike McGarry's explanation above.
We should not trust our ear on this one. It's weird.
Numerical quantifiers are weird.
By "numerical quantifiers" I refer to words such as rate, percentage, proportion, level, quantity, and number.
Numerical quantifiers themselves are uncountable and take "less," not "fewer."
A very similar Magoosh question that I just noticed and that contains two very helpful posts at the top of the thread can be found by clicking here.
Read the first two posts after the actual question. (That is, read the second and third posts, by Mike McGarry and retired mod pqhai, respectively.
When the noun at issue is itself a number—for example, rate, population, volume, percentage, and number—we use less, not fewer.
Finally, see a very good Magoosh blog post here for a 3-minute read about the words more, greater, and less (and what to use with the word "number").
Quote:
MAGOOSH Official Explanation
Split #1: countable nouns vs. numbers
This is a very tricky topic.
If we are talking about uncountable nouns, nouns for which we would ask “how much?,” we use “less”—less time, less money, less water, less humor, less freedom.
If we are talking about countable nouns, nouns for which we would ask “how many?,” we use “fewer”—fewer windows, fewer teachers, fewer books, fewer ideas, fewer chances.
BUT, if we are talking about pure numbers, residents of the number line, we use “less”—for example, 3 is less than the square root of 10.
This final rule includes instances in which we talk about “the number of” some real-world countable thing, such as people attending a rally.
We talk about “fewer people” but say that “the number of people was less.”
Choice (A): “the number of people … fewer” = incorrect
Choice (B): “the number of people … less” = correct
Choice (C): “less than 300,000 [people]” = iffy
Choice (D): “number of people … fewer” = incorrect
Choice (E): “number of people … fewer” = incorrect
Split #2: Grammatical Construction and contrast
Choice (A) compares a “claim” to an “estimation”—not exactly the same, but not clearly wrong.
The phrasing with “at” is awkward, unidiomatic, and wrong.
This choice is incorrect.
Choice (B) has [independent clause] “but” [independent clause]—a well-constructed contrast.
[KEEP.]
Choice (C) is strange: it contrasts two incompatible factual statements. It can’t be true both that the rally “drew close to half a million” and that “less than 300,000 were there.”
This is grammatically correct but a complete logical impossibility!
This choice is incorrect.
Choice (D) has an illogical comparison: “it was the claim … unlike city officials.”
We have to compare like-to-like, ideas to ideas, or people to people.
This choice is incorrect.
Choice (E) is one of the longest answer choices.
The first half is flawless. Participles can be noun-modifiers or verb-modifiers, so the participle “compared to” can be understood as applying to the verb “claimed”: even so, comparing this to “estimation,” a noun, is awkward.
The entire second half is extremely clunky and indirect: changing the verb “to estimate” to the noun “estimation” removes any active punch this section had.
This choice is incorrect.
The only possible choice is (B).
MY COMMENTS
kungfury42 , please see Mike McGarry's explanation above.
We should not trust our ear on this one. It's weird.
Numerical quantifiers are weird.
By "numerical quantifiers" I refer to words such as rate, percentage, proportion, level, quantity, and number.
Numerical quantifiers themselves are uncountable and take "less," not "fewer."
A very similar Magoosh question that I just noticed and that contains two very helpful posts at the top of the thread can be found by clicking here.
Read the first two posts after the actual question. (That is, read the second and third posts, by Mike McGarry and retired mod pqhai, respectively.
When the noun at issue is itself a number—for example, rate, population, volume, percentage, and number—we use less, not fewer.
Finally, see a very good Magoosh blog post here for a 3-minute read about the words more, greater, and less (and what to use with the word "number").
kungfury42
Joined: 07 Jan 2022
Last visit: 31 May 2023
Posts: 580
Given Kudos: 724
Schools: NUS '25 (A)
GMAT 1: 740 Q51 V38
GPA: 4
Products:
21 Mar 2022, 01:44
Kudos
Bookmarks
In (B) we are using less to describe a countable quantity - number of people. Can anyone please explain how is it correct?
Posted from my mobile device
Posted from my mobile device
