For the first time

[RonPurewal]

anupa, george -- you guys are both missing the point.

Hi Ron

Sorry to start this thread again, but I would like to know what 'it' in the E does not refer to the 'the population of the state'. If I replace that 'it' with 'the population of the state' and read option E, it reads as
'amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from what the population of the state (replacing it) was a decade ago by nearly three-quarters'

which lets me that it refers to 'the population of the state'.

Could you please tell me why is this ambiguous

the reason why this pronoun reference is incorrect is not that it's ambiguous; the reason is that it's totally WRONG.

the meaning of the sentence is that the percentage of california's population that consists of white people has fallen from its previous level. there is no noun corresponding to this idea, so the pronoun is incorrect.

according to your interpretation, the population of the state itself has fallen; that's not the meaning of the sentence.

you can't judge pronouns without understanding the meaning of the sentence!

[gmatango]

Sorry for touching this long discussed thread again.

Had a question about the antecedent of the last modifier (down from what it was a decade ago by nearly three-quarters). Is this modifier an absolute phrase or an appositive ? As this modifier seem to refer to "% of california's population that is white".

Just want to understand the construction of this modifier ?

Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

Sorry for touching this long discussed thread again.

Had a question about the antecedent of the last modifier (down from what it was a decade ago by nearly three-quarters). Is this modifier an absolute phrase or an appositive ?

it's neither; "down" is an adjective, so it's ... um ... an adjective modifier.
i don't actually know whether it's really called that (dirty secret: i hardly know any grammatical names at all, unless i google them before posting), but it works in the same way as other modifiers that start with adjectives. these are somewhat flexible and can modify either the subject of the sentence or a noun that's closer, depending on context.

[sabharwal.bhavna]

(dirty secret: i hardly know any grammatical names at all, unless i google them before posting)

you are funny ron...

[RonPurewal]

(dirty secret: i hardly know any grammatical names at all, unless i google them before posting)

you are funny ron...

not really intended to be funny.
learning the formal names of grammatical constructions -- with the exception of the most basic elements of a sentence, such as nouns, verbs, etc. -- is at best a waste of your time, and at worst a distraction from the stuff that actually solves the problems.

[zhongshanlh]

Sorry for touching this long discussed thread again.

Had a question about the antecedent of the last modifier (down from what it was a decade ago by nearly three-quarters). Is this modifier an absolute phrase or an appositive ?

it's neither; "down" is an adjective, so it's ... um ... an adjective modifier.
i don't actually know whether it's really called that (dirty secret: i hardly know any grammatical names at all, unless i google them before posting), but it works in the same way as other modifiers that start with adjectives. these are somewhat flexible and can modify either the subject of the sentence or a noun that's closer, depending on context.

i am still not completely understand the use of this phrase here.

actually, this is the first time i encounter such kind of construction--->COMMA ADJ

in general, it is quite often for us to come up with the adjective open modifier without subject at the beginning of a main clause, and in that situation, the adjective phrase applies to the subject of the following clause.

however, i am quite confused about this kind of construction--->COMMA ADJ
so,Ron, would you please tell us more about this kind of modifier?if with examples, that will be much better.
thank you so much in advance.

[mylittled2008]

For the first time in the modern era, non-Hispanic Whites are officially a minority in California, which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly three-quarters only a decade ago.

D. amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly three-quarters a decade ago
E. amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from what it was a decade ago by nearly three-quarters

There is a difference between D and E: "down from xxx"
E. "it" doesn't have an antecedent.

[tim]

what phrase are you talking about? to be honest, it is much more easy for us to help you if you provide specific examples from GMAT questions you didn't understand rather than to ask us for examples of something that's not entirely clear in the first place..

[thulsy]

Dear instructor,

Choice (D) does not have the word "only", so does it lose the meaning conveyed by "only" in the original sentence - the meaning that this change happened in such a short time?

I was stuck between (A) and (D), and then incorrectly chose (A) with the above concern in mind. Could you advice on: to what extent shall we preserve the original meaning? Thanks.

For the first time in the modern era, non-Hispanic Whites are officially a minority in
California, which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from
nearly three-quarters only a decade ago.

A. which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from
nearly three-quarters only a decade ago
B. which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from a
decade ago, when it was nearly three-quarters
C. and that amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from a
decade ago, when they were nearly three-quarters
D. amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly
three-quarters a decade ago
E. amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from what it
was a decade ago by nearly three-quarters

OA is D but I picked E - can anyone tel me why E is wrong

[RonPurewal]

this change is pretty trivial, so it's not a concern.

in general, as long as you still wind up with something that makes sense, you're ok.
when there are "change of meaning" errors, they pretty much always transform the sentence into something that is nonsense and/or is clearly not the intended meaning.

[thulsy]

Thanks, Ron. :)

[tim]

:)

[niharika.jain03]

We will eliminate A and B as they have the relative pronoun "which". It refers to the immediately preceding noun i.e. California. This doesnot make sense.
In option C , the relative pronoun "that" has no subject . This means we can eliminate C as well.
Now, we are left with option D and E. Both the options seem correct as they are starting with "amounting". The use of present participle in the end modifier shows the result of the main clause.
D versus E
We will eliminate E as it contains a pronoun "it" but we cant determine the subject it is referring to. Also, this sentence changes the original meaning of the sentence i.e. the economy reduced to half from three-quarters and not by three-quarters.

[tim]

let us know if there are any further questions on this one..

[tushaw]

In choice (B) can "which" also refer to "minority" that amounts to a little less than half the population of the state?