GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 09 Dec 2019, 20:25

### 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

# V02-25

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 59622

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2014, 01:57
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

65% (01:05) correct 35% (01:05) wrong based on 54 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In the 1980s computer books’ sales accounted for approximately 4% of operating profits of a typical publishing company; in the 2000s this proportion increased to 40%.

A. company; in the 2000s this proportion increased to 40%.
B. company; in the 2000s they increased by 40%.
C. company, in the 2000s they increased to 40%.
D. company; increasing to 40% in the 2000s.
E. company, which increased to 40% in the 2000s.

_________________
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 59622

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2014, 01:57
1
Official Solution:

In the 1980s computer books’ sales accounted for approximately 4% of operating profits of a typical publishing company; in the 2000s this proportion increased to 40%.

A. company; in the 2000s this proportion increased to 40%.
B. company; in the 2000s they increased by 40%.
C. company, in the 2000s they increased to 40%.
D. company; increasing to 40% in the 2000s.
E. company, which increased to 40% in the 2000s.

The use of semicolon the first sentence is correct as it connects two closely related clauses. The comparison made is also contextually and grammatically correct. “In the 1980s” is correctly compared with “in the 2000s” and both are grammatically parallel. The use of “this proportion” unambiguously refers to the proportion of “computer books sales” in the first part of the sentence.
1. CORRECT. This answer choice is correct as explained above.
2. This answer choice contains two errors. First, the phrase “increased by 40%” incorrectly changes the meaning of the original sentence, implying that “40%” indicates the relative magnitude of the increase rather than the new proportion of “advertising revenues” in the structure of “operating profits.” Second, the pronoun “they” is ambiguous and does not have a clear antecedent and could refer to either “operating profits” or “computer books’ sales.”
3. The comma is incorrectly used to join two independent clauses, thus making the sentence run-on. rather than with a semicolon or with a connecting conjunction. Further, the pronoun “they” lacks a clear antecedent and could be interpreted to refer either “operating profits” or “computer books’ sales.”
4. This answer choice incorrectly uses a semicolon to connect two clauses, only one of which can stand alone. The phrase “increasing to 40% in the 1980s” is not an independent clause and cannot follow the semicolon. Furthermore, by moving the time reference “in the 2000s” from the beginning of the second clause to the end, this answer choice violates parallelism with the non-underlined portion of the sentence that begins with another time reference “In the 1980s.”
5. “Which” is used incorrectly; clauses introduced by the relative pronoun “which” can refer only to the immediately preceding noun. In this case, the relative pronoun “which” refers to “a typical book publishing company,” thus illogically suggesting that “a typical book publishing company” was the subject of the increase. Finally, by moving the time reference “in the 2000s” from the beginning of the second clause to the end, this answer choice does not maintain parallel structure with the non-underlined portion of the sentence that begins with the time reference “In the 1980s.”

_________________
Manager
Joined: 19 Dec 2015
Posts: 108
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 3.8
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2016, 17:28
Please fix the underlined portion in the question.
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Posts: 327
Location: India
Concentration: Social Entrepreneurship, General Management
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 2.8

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2016, 07:29
how does this proportion ambiguously refer to computer book sales?why cant it refer to Operation profits?
Logically it refers to computer book sales,but other wise how do we say it refers to book sales.
chetan2u
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2849
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2016, 08:17
goforgmat wrote:
how does this proportion ambiguously refer to computer book sales?why cant it refer to Operation profits?
Logically it refers to computer book sales,but other wise how do we say it refers to book sales.
chetan2u

There is only one proportion given in the first part of the sentence - 4%. Sales cannot be referred as proportion and moreover there are no figures (proportions or absolute amounts) given for sales. Thus "this proportion" unambiguously refers to the only one, "4%", mentioned in the sentence.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2849
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2016, 08:26
1
FacelessMan wrote:
Please fix the underlined portion in the question.

fixed - thank you.
Manager
Joined: 23 Jan 2017
Posts: 70

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2017, 12:17
1
I agree that A is correct. However with due respect, I tend to partially disagree with the OE on C.

Option C:
1. I agree that comma cannot join two independent clauses, and hence a good reason to eliminate this answer choice. However,
2. I don't think antecedent of "they" is ambiguous here. We are dealing with percentages, and "operating profits" is the denominator. By saying that a denominator figure is increased to 40% is meaningless (40% of what?? ). It can either decrease "to" 40% (of itself) or increase "by" 40%(of itself). So, "they" cannot refer to "operation projects" when we say "increase to 40%". That means "they" is unambiguously referring to "sales" only.
Intern
Status: Chartered Accountant
Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Posts: 28
Location: India
WE: Accounting (Consulting)

### Show Tags

27 Nov 2019, 00:00
I agree that there is a meaning issue because of pronoun which.

Why do we need parallelism in option E? The sentence structure is changed and there is not parallel marker. Therefore we don't need parallelism.

Thank you.
Re: V02-25   [#permalink] 27 Nov 2019, 00:00
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# V02-25

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

Moderators: chetan2u, Bunuel

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne