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.
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
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
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
18 Apr 2010, 11:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
N
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
50% (00:42) correct
50%
(00:27)
wrong
based on 7
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
OA A
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Sentence Correction (SC - EA only) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Although I frequently advise students to deal with Idioms last, I definitely felt the impulse to use the "increase of/increase in" split on this one. “Increase in (a certain year)” sounded better; I wondered, “Does ‘increase of the previous year’ suggest that the year stretched in duration??” At best, trying to recall idiom examples can take more time than grammar splits. At worst, your ear can bias you toward one split and blind you to the others.
Here are some idiom examples:
"the increase of X" could mean the increase of a thing (e.g. the increase of security forces followed the recent conflicts). But the idiom is also used for an increase that occurred in a certain time period (e.g. the sharp increase of 1998 was followed by the sudden decline of 2001)
“the increase in X” seems more commonly used for an increase in the size/amount/number of a thing (e.g. the increase in mortality rates, or the increase in the number of female ambassadors). However, “the increase in X” can also mean an increase in a certain time period (e.g. the increase in March actually exceeded the record increase in February.)
So, either idiom is fine here, I think.
Some might say that there is a case for “in the previous year” in order to be parallel with “in 1990” earlier in the sentence. I don’t think that’s required, because “of the previous year” modifies the noun “increase,” whereas “in 1990” modifies the verb “rose”; these modifiers are already used in a non-parallel way.
What are the other (better) splits?
(1) doubling/double/twice
“double/twice” after the comma is a noun modifier. Examples of correct usage:
--These cookies have 500 calories, twice as many calories as the low fat cookies. (modifies “calories”)
--The tickets cost $20, double what they cost in 1990. (modifies “$20”)
In this GMATPrep sentence, such modifiers would belong closer to “the number of people.” Partly because of the distance, the math is a little unclear. Are we comparing (the number of people flying in 1990) OR (the rise (increase) in the number of people flying in 1990) TO (the increase in 1989)?
In contrast, “doubling” is an adverbial modifier. It modifies the verb of the main clause, “rose.” How sharply did the number of people flying rise? So much that it doubled the increase of the previous year. Eliminate CDE.
(2) “double as much as” is redundant. Reusing one of my examples from above:
--The tickets cost $20, double as much as what they cost in 1990. (“as much as” is unnecessary and awkward). A second reason to eliminate C.
(3) “doubling the increase” vs. “doubling that of the increase”
The pronoun "that" doesn’t have a clear antecedent. The only singular candidate is “the number,” but that fails the logic test when we replace the pronoun with the antecedent:
“The number of people … rose sharply in 1990, doubling the number (of people) of the increase in the previous year.” Number of people of the increase? Eliminate B.
So without even touching the idiom, you could arrive at A.
Here are some idiom examples:
"the increase of X" could mean the increase of a thing (e.g. the increase of security forces followed the recent conflicts). But the idiom is also used for an increase that occurred in a certain time period (e.g. the sharp increase of 1998 was followed by the sudden decline of 2001)
“the increase in X” seems more commonly used for an increase in the size/amount/number of a thing (e.g. the increase in mortality rates, or the increase in the number of female ambassadors). However, “the increase in X” can also mean an increase in a certain time period (e.g. the increase in March actually exceeded the record increase in February.)
So, either idiom is fine here, I think.
Some might say that there is a case for “in the previous year” in order to be parallel with “in 1990” earlier in the sentence. I don’t think that’s required, because “of the previous year” modifies the noun “increase,” whereas “in 1990” modifies the verb “rose”; these modifiers are already used in a non-parallel way.
What are the other (better) splits?
(1) doubling/double/twice
“double/twice” after the comma is a noun modifier. Examples of correct usage:
--These cookies have 500 calories, twice as many calories as the low fat cookies. (modifies “calories”)
--The tickets cost $20, double what they cost in 1990. (modifies “$20”)
In this GMATPrep sentence, such modifiers would belong closer to “the number of people.” Partly because of the distance, the math is a little unclear. Are we comparing (the number of people flying in 1990) OR (the rise (increase) in the number of people flying in 1990) TO (the increase in 1989)?
In contrast, “doubling” is an adverbial modifier. It modifies the verb of the main clause, “rose.” How sharply did the number of people flying rise? So much that it doubled the increase of the previous year. Eliminate CDE.
(2) “double as much as” is redundant. Reusing one of my examples from above:
--The tickets cost $20, double as much as what they cost in 1990. (“as much as” is unnecessary and awkward). A second reason to eliminate C.
(3) “doubling the increase” vs. “doubling that of the increase”
The pronoun "that" doesn’t have a clear antecedent. The only singular candidate is “the number,” but that fails the logic test when we replace the pronoun with the antecedent:
“The number of people … rose sharply in 1990, doubling the number (of people) of the increase in the previous year.” Number of people of the increase? Eliminate B.
So without even touching the idiom, you could arrive at A.
19 May 2010, 23:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
here you can't use the construction twice as many as, because that's an appositive modifier ... appositives modify a noun that comes directly before the comma .... which in this case is 1990.. since 1990 is not a figure but a year, you can't use this construction.
so eliminate D & E
-ing followed by comma modifies the entire action of the preceding clause .. because you're comparing the increase in the number of people flying first class
so A it is
so eliminate D & E
-ing followed by comma modifies the entire action of the preceding clause .. because you're comparing the increase in the number of people flying first class
so A it is
