Last visit was: 27 Apr 2026, 20:57 It is currently 27 Apr 2026, 20:57
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
sudhirmadaan
User avatar
Joined: 29 Nov 2011
Last visit: 22 Jul 2016
Posts: 75
Own Kudos:
85
Given Kudos: 366
Posts: 75
Kudos: 85
Explanation not clear,please help 15 Jun 2016, 10:20
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Mike,

Although the initial setup of generators and a power grid by Edison and J.P. Morgan was rather costly, the electrification of lighting in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency when the energy costs were cut in half.

(A) the electrification of lighting in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency when the energy costs were cut in half
(B) the electrification of lighting in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency while cutting energy costs in half
(C) the electrification of lighting in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency while costs were cut to half
(D) lighting electrification in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency while energy costs were cut in half
(E) lighting electrification in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency while costs were cut to half

Meaning :- Please correct me if I am wrong
the initial set-up of power grid is costly but electrification of lighting doubled the work efficiency and cut the energy cost in half.

Error in original sentence:-
According to the sentence efficiency get doubled as soon as cost is half. This is not the intending meaning.

B looks good to me , presenting contrast, but I have doubt. Cutting energy cannot be noun in parallel to electrification , so has to be in parallel with verb doubled
please explain how these two are parellel
C s wrong as this does not explain which costs cut in half.
D My understanding says intended meaning is "Electrification " does two things 1) doubled efficiency and cuts cost.
User avatar
mikemcgarry
User avatar
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Last visit: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 4,474
Own Kudos:
30,890
 [2]
Given Kudos: 130
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 4,474
Kudos: 30,890
 [2]
Explanation not clear,please help 15 Jun 2016, 14:27
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
sudhirmadaan
Hi Mike,

Although the initial setup of generators and a power grid by Edison and J.P. Morgan was rather costly, the electrification of lighting in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency when the energy costs were cut in half.

(A) the electrification of lighting in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency when the energy costs were cut in half
(B) the electrification of lighting in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency while cutting energy costs in half
(C) the electrification of lighting in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency while costs were cut to half
(D) lighting electrification in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency while energy costs were cut in half
(E) lighting electrification in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency while costs were cut to half

Meaning :- Please correct me if I am wrong
the initial set-up of power grid is costly but electrification of lighting doubled the work efficiency and cut the energy cost in half.

Error in original sentence:-
According to the sentence efficiency get doubled as soon as cost is half. This is not the intending meaning.

B looks good to me , presenting contrast, but I have doubt. Cutting energy cannot be noun in parallel to electrification , so has to be in parallel with verb doubled
please explain how these two are parellel
C s wrong as this does not explain which costs cut in half.
D My understanding says intended meaning is "Electrification " does two things 1) doubled efficiency and cuts cost.
Show more
Dear sudhirmadaan,
I'm happy to respond. :-)

I'm curious about the source of this question. Your statement of the meaning is perfect.

The original sentence has a curious logical error. We infer that putting electric lights in Manhattan did two good things: (1) doubled work efficiency, and (2) cut energy costs. Those two things happened at the same time and were independent of each other, each a direct effect of using electric lights.

In choice (A), the word "when" creates a bizarre logical error. It sounds as if they only have the increased work efficiency on specific days when the the energy costs were low. It creates the sense that there is a connection between these two things, which is not logical. The two things don't have a cause-effect relationship with each other: instead, each is an effect of installing the electric lights. That's why (A) is wrong.

Choice (B) conveys the meaning. Using the word "while" is a good way to create a sense of contrast between two simultaneous actions. "During the workout regimen, she doubled what she ate while she lost weight."

The phrase "cut to half" is idiomatically incorrect. That's why (C) & (E) are incorrect.

The phrase "lighting electrification" is unusual and unclear. The original phrase, "the electrification of lighting," is 100% clear: we had non-electric lights that are not being replaced with electric lights. By contrast, does "lighting electrification" mean that we are getting electric lights or that we are shedding light on some other kind of electrical work? It's a sloppy ambiguous way of trying to convey this. The original phrase is much better. This is why (D) & (E) are wrong.

Given all this, we see the best answer has to be (B).

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
User avatar
sudhirmadaan
User avatar
Joined: 29 Nov 2011
Last visit: 22 Jul 2016
Posts: 75
Own Kudos:
85
Given Kudos: 366
Posts: 75
Kudos: 85
Explanation not clear,please help 15 Jun 2016, 22:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mikemcgarry
sudhirmadaan
Hi Mike,

Although the initial setup of generators and a power grid by Edison and J.P. Morgan was rather costly, the electrification of lighting in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency when the energy costs were cut in half.

(A) the electrification of lighting in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency when the energy costs were cut in half
(B) the electrification of lighting in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency while cutting energy costs in half
(C) the electrification of lighting in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency while costs were cut to half
(D) lighting electrification in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency while energy costs were cut in half
(E) lighting electrification in lower Manhattan doubled work efficiency while costs were cut to half

Meaning :- Please correct me if I am wrong
the initial set-up of power grid is costly but electrification of lighting doubled the work efficiency and cut the energy cost in half.

Error in original sentence:-
According to the sentence efficiency get doubled as soon as cost is half. This is not the intending meaning.

B looks good to me , presenting contrast, but I have doubt. Cutting energy cannot be noun in parallel to electrification , so has to be in parallel with verb doubled
please explain how these two are parellel
C s wrong as this does not explain which costs cut in half.
D My understanding says intended meaning is "Electrification " does two things 1) doubled efficiency and cuts cost.
Dear sudhirmadaan,
I'm happy to respond. :-)

I'm curious about the source of this question. Your statement of the meaning is perfect.

The original sentence has a curious logical error. We infer that putting electric lights in Manhattan did two good things: (1) doubled work efficiency, and (2) cut energy costs. Those two things happened at the same time and were independent of each other, each a direct effect of using electric lights.

In choice (A), the word "when" creates a bizarre logical error. It sounds as if they only have the increased work efficiency on specific days when the the energy costs were low. It creates the sense that there is a connection between these two things, which is not logical. The two things don't have a cause-effect relationship with each other: instead, each is an effect of installing the electric lights. That's why (A) is wrong.

Choice (B) conveys the meaning. Using the word "while" is a good way to create a sense of contrast between two simultaneous actions. "During the workout regimen, she doubled what she ate while she lost weight."

The phrase "cut to half" is idiomatically incorrect. That's why (C) & (E) are incorrect.

The phrase "lighting electrification" is unusual and unclear. The original phrase, "the electrification of lighting," is 100% clear: we had non-electric lights that are not being replaced with electric lights. By contrast, does "lighting electrification" mean that we are getting electric lights or that we are shedding light on some other kind of electrical work? It's a sloppy ambiguous way of trying to convey this. The original phrase is much better. This is why (D) & (E) are wrong.

Given all this, we see the best answer has to be (B).

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)
Show more


Thanks Mike, Its crystal clear. I don't know the source was just practising question from gmatclub, but looks like people were getting to right answer but with illogical explanations