In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest

Question

In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002 .

A. In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.
 
B. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies’ asset growth was fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly double that of 2002.
 
C. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth in the early 2000s, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice that of 2002.
 
D. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.
 
E. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies’ assets grew rapidly, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice the number they had in 2002.

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 53: Sentence Correction 
 Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day:   E-mail  |  RSS 
 For All QOTD Questions  Click Here

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

"They" really doesn't work very well here. Sure, we intuitively understand that "they" refers back to "companies"... except that "companies" is possessive in this sentence, and a non-possessive pronoun ("they") can't refer back to a possessive noun on the GMAT. At the very least, I've never seen a correct answer that does so -- and this could definitely be clearer. Eliminate (A).

"That" is used as a singular pronoun here, so we need to look for a singular noun that it could refer back to. I don't see a whole lot of options: "total", I guess? But that really doesn't make much sense. ( For more on the GMAT's many uses of "that", click here. )

Plus, we still have the same pronoun issue as in (A). Eliminate (B).

"They" works a little bit better, but "that of" still doesn't make any sense. (C) is out.

This looks fine! We're legitimately comparing the number of subsidiaries now, and the pronoun issues have been cleaned up. Keep (D).

The comparison at the end is incredibly wordy, and that's not necessarily the end of the world, but (D) is clearly better. Plus, we're back to the same pronoun issue as in (A) and (B). So (E) is gone, and (D) is the correct answer.

gmatexam439 · Answer

In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002 .
 
A. In South Korea in the early 2000s,  growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets  was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002. - Unidiomatic. Growth of the assets is correct idiom. 
 
B. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies’ asset growth was fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly  double  that of 2002. - Double is not used when there is a comparision. We need twice .
 
C. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth in the early 2000s, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly  twice that  of 2002. -  Twice that is wrong in this context .

D. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002. - CORRECT .
 
E. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies’ assets grew  rapidly , fueled by their  rapid  expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice the number they had in 2002. - The adverb "rapidly" and adjective "rapid" could have been avoided. They are redundant.

Please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kudos if it helps!

arvind910619 · Answer

Imo E

We are comparing number so E is better .
D compares number to subsidiary

Luckisnoexcuse · Answer

I will stick to A considering that the decision was not rapidly taken

hotshot02 · Answer

I think its D as clauses separated by a colon (:) should refer the same subject (companies...they)

akshayk · Answer

This question was something.

A - 'they' has no antecedent as companies' is a possessive noun so it cannot refer to companies. Out.
B - Same as A.
C - Twice that of 2002 is incorrect. Out.
D - 'they' and 'their' refer back to ten largest companies. + 'twice as many as in 2002' correct compares the subsidiaries in 2002 Vs. the subsidiaries in 2011.
E - E suffers from the same issues as A & B.

D is the correct answer. Waiting for the OA

jwang516 · Answer

A, B and E are all out for pronoun error. "THEY" do not have a clear antecedent as "THEY" do not refer to companies' assets but should refer to the companies themselves.

The difference in C and D is a comparison parallelism issue.

C. "they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice that of 2002" - subsidiaries "in" is not parallel to "that of"....you cannot say nearly twice "subsidiaries of 2002"

D - "they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice the number they had in 2002" - Correctly compares the number of subsidiaries in 2011 to the number of subsidiaries in 2002

The answer is D

AkshayKS21 · Answer

Here is why E is wrong (assuming you have eliminated A, B, and C) In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies’ assets grew rapidly, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice the number they had in 2002. Identify the Subject and Verb pair: Assets is the subject. Is this sentence correct: "Fuelled by asset's rapid expansion into new lines of business"? No. Also, consider this after semicolon: "Assets had a total of 592 subsidiaries....". No!!! Companies had subsidiaries. Hence, E is out. D is the answer.

daagh · Answer

MadaraU wrote:

Original B: The bowerbirds of Australia derive their name from the fact that the males build elaborate bowers of sticks and twigs that the males build and decorate with flowers and other vegetation in order to attract females, decorating them with flowers and other vegetation in a display of courtship.

Your version: The bowerbirds of Australia derive their name from the elaborate bowers of sticks and twigs, that the males build and decorate with flowers and other vegetation in order to attract females, decorating them with flowers and other vegetation in a display of courtship.

You can see the meaning goes awry with the introduction of the comma before that. When you put the comma, then the content between the two commas is rendered inessential and should not alter the intended meaning of the main sentence. If you remove the modifier, then the sentence reads:
The bowerbirds of Australia derive their name from the elaborate bowers of sticks and twigs decorating them with flowers and other vegetation in a display of courtship.
Now, who is decorating whom or what? It looks as though sticks and twigs or bowers of sticks and twigs are decorating the birds (them)
We can now see how weird the meaning changes. Logically, we know that the birds cannot build sticks and twigs but only bowers. Therefore, B is quite ok

HTH

ManSab · Answer

Typical GMAT question with so much of obscured structure. 
After reading few times, used split - "nearly twice as many as in" to narrow down to A and D. D is more concise and clear. Answer D.

origen87 · Answer

Option A,B,E can be eliminated basis the pronoun reference of 'they' to 'assets' This comparison doesnt make sense.
So the comparison is between C and D.

C. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth in the early 2000s, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice that of 2002.
Here 'the nation's' is redundant,..In South Korea, the ten largest companies experienced.... this would have been better. Verb+ed 'fueled' modifies 'the early 2000's' which again doesnt make sense.

'that of' is wrong. 'the number in' would have been better.

Option D is the winner

In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest companies’ assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002 .
 
A. In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest  companies’  assets was fueled by the companies’ rapid expansion into new lines of business:  they  had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.
 
B. In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies’ asset growth was fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly double that of 2002.
 
C. In South Korea, the  nation’s  ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth in  the early 2000s, fueled  by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice  that of  2002.
 
D. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice as many as in 2002.
 
E. In the early 2000s, South Korea’s ten largest  companies’  assets grew rapidly, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice the number they had in 2002.

jenks88 · Answer

There was supposed to be an expert reply to this but its missing

GMATNinja · Answer

It's there -- right below the original post.

nafrank112 · Answer

Can someone explain why "that" does not make sense in choice c? I am of the belief that "that of" = total of

GMATNinja · Answer

In theory, it would make sense for "that of" to refer back to "total", since "total" is the nearest singular noun. So here's (C) again, with "that of" replaced by "total of":

In South Korea, the nation’s ten largest companies experienced rapid asset growth in the early 2000s, fueled by their rapid expansion into new lines of business: they had a total of 592 subsidiaries in 2011, nearly twice  the total of  2002.

It's not horrible, but it certainly isn't great, either. It seems awfully weird to say "the total of 2002" in this case, partly because it sounds like the year is somehow possessing the total. More importantly: notice the phrase "total of 592 subsidiaries" earlier in the sentence. If we follow that with the phrase "total of 2002", it sounds like we might be trying to say that there are a total of 2002 subsidiaries, and that makes no sense at all.

Again, this isn't a totally heinous crime, and you could probably hold your nose and pick (C) if there weren't any better alternatives. But the phrase "total of 2002" is just shaky enough that it should at least make you hesitate a little bit.

I hope this helps!

pra1785 · Answer

Hi, option D also has rapid asset growth, fuel by rapid expansion. Why is that not considered redundant like E?

pra1785 · Answer

I am still confused after reading all the explanations. Why is there no pronoun ambiguity in option D like the other options? How can one say that 'they' and 'their' refers back to the companies in option D but not in other sentences? I don't see the difference

GMATNinja · Answer

Ah, I think I see where the confusion is coming from. In (D), you could argue that there's a little bit of ambiguity, but pronoun ambiguity isn't an absolute rule on the GMAT. More on that in this YouTube webinar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhN_KU1bSKU. The bigger issue is when a pronoun has no reasonable referent at all. In (A), (B), and (E), one problem is that "they" logically needs to refer back to "companies", but "companies" is actually possessive. And in most cases on the GMAT, non-possessive pronouns can't refer back to possessive nouns. The other pronoun problem is the use of "that of" at the end of the sentence in (B) and (C). "That" is a singular pronoun in this case, but it has no logical referent at all. And that's a much, much bigger problem than the small ambiguity issues in (D). For more on the uses of "that" (as a pronoun, among other things), check out this article: https://gmatclub.com/forum/experts-topi ... 43686.html I hope this helps!

chesstitans · Answer

"they" is the key word here b/c test takers can quickly find the correct answer with this hint.

In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Questions

In South Korea in the early 2000s, growth in the nation’s ten largest

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards