GMAT Questions - Soaring television costs accounted for more

[james.jt.wu]

Hi Ron,

I have a question for you with regards to your explanation for why C is wrong. I picked A because I've seen similar question before... but I never quite get why C's construction is wrong.

Well, two problems with C, one which I actually get, the other, I don't.

1.) "They" stand for the whole package of "soaring television costs" So if let's replace They with the antecedent:

Soaring television costs accounted for more than half of the spending in the presidential election of 1992, a greater proportion than the SOARING TELEVISION COSTS have been in any previous election.

Therefore, it is nonsense... you are comparing Soaring Television Costs to another Soaring Televions Costs when you are really trying to compare cost to cost.

Cool - I got this part. YOu can't cherry-pick your pronouns.

2.) Ellipsis paralleism - This is the part I'm not as clear about. The pronoun problem aside, wouldn't it make sense to say:

Soaring television costs accounted for more than half of the spending in the presidential election of 1992, a greater proportion than they have been (accounting for) in any previous campaign.

Per your original suggestion, why is it that in the parenthesis you need "ACCOUNTING" vs "accounted for"? This makes no sense.

I would've eliminated C (in addition to the pronoun problem before) based on verb tense, not parallelism. It should have been "they had been accounted for" because the more recent television costs in 1992 are in past tense. If I changed the tense to past perfect, would Choice C be correct?

I really want to understand your ellipsis parallelism concept. I see this type of construction all the time when x than y comparison is used... can you perhaps provide a few illustrative, simple examples?

Thank you,

James

[mschwrtz]

Ellipsis paralleism - This is the part I'm not as clear about. The pronoun problem aside, wouldn't it make sense to say:

Soaring television costs accounted for more than half of the spending in the presidential election of 1992, a greater proportion than they have been (accounting for) in any previous campaign.

Per your original suggestion, why is it that in the parenthesis you need "ACCOUNTING" vs "accounted for"? This makes no sense.

The verb ellipsed need not be in precisely the same tense as the verb used earlier in the sentence. We can correctly say "I wanted to see Flashdance but my wife already had (seen Flashdance)."

On the other hand, we have to understand the verb ellipsed to match with any tense markers present, so we cannot understand that sentence to mean "I wanted to see Flashdance but my wife already had (see Flashdance)," or "I wanted to see Flashdance but my wife already had (to see Flashdance)."

[maribelsalazar02]

so how do you know that "soaring television costs" should be taken as a whole as opposed to just "television costs"? I am confused on that.. thanks!

[RonPurewal]

so how do you know that "soaring television costs" should be taken as a whole as opposed to just "television costs"? I am confused on that.. thanks!

as long as we know that we are talking about the television costs, it's immaterial whether you include that adjective in your analysis.
i.e., all of the television costs in the problem are "soaring" anyway, so the meaning is invariant regardless of whether you include that adjective.

[ritalun]

hi, Ron, why can't 'it' stands for 'proportion' in option A?

[ritalun]

hi, Ron, why can't 'it' stands for 'proportion' in option A?

sorry, i found the explaination in the 2nd page. please ignore it,thanks.

[tim]

no problem..

[violetwind]

Hi ,
In choice B, what two thing we're comparing (if it's not the cost)?
In choice B, it seems to me:
greater X than Y where X & Y are NOT similar things.
X=proportion Y=in any previous election

Can anybody please explain how B is making sense here?

there's ellipsis here. the understood comparison is a repeated instance of "proportion".
in contexts in which you would repeat a noun, you don't have to include the repeated noun; you may merely imply it. this is known as ellipsis.

for instance:
this year's heavyweight champion is shorter than last year's.
here, the second half of the comparison is clearly "last year's heavyweight champion", but you don't have to say "heavyweight champion" again.

Hi Ron,
What would it be like if this sentence is written in a completed version but not an ellipisis?

from the above explanations ,I already know that any pronoun (it/they) are wrong to follow"than", and the only way left is to repeat the word ""proportion"?

another quesiton: as seen in another post(employment-costs-rose-2-8-percent-t4455.html)(debarya's post and your reply),

it seems you justifed the saying that "a greater proportion than...." should be followed by the "to do" verb form, I don't quite get it why we need a "do" rather than a "be" here as I think it is "television costs" that "do" but not the "proportion".

[RonPurewal]

What would it be like if this sentence is written in a completed version but not an ellipisis?

"this sentence" = which sentence? (this thread has almost 40 posts, so it's difficult to understand vague references.)

in any case, this is the wrong way to approach sentences like this -- the whole point of omitting repeated words is that sentences without the repeated words are weird and awkward. therefore, you don't want to construct them.

the better way to approach comparisons is simply to eliminate comparisons that are either
1) ambiguous, or
2) demonstrably non-parallel.

every incorrect comparison will satisfy either 1) or 2), and perhaps even both.

[violetwind]

What would it be like if this sentence is written in a completed version but not an ellipisis?

"this sentence" = which sentence? (this thread has almost 40 posts, so it's difficult to understand vague references.)

in any case, this is the wrong way to approach sentences like this -- the whole point of omitting repeated words is that sentences without the repeated words are weird and awkward. therefore, you don't want to construct them.

the better way to approach comparisons is simply to eliminate comparisons that are either
1) ambiguous, or
2) demonstrably non-parallel.

every incorrect comparison will satisfy either 1) or 2), and perhaps even both.

sorry what I meant was this SC problem's right version.

well, sometimes I just feel that when I know how the full version of a sentence involving comparison is like, I can easily judge the choices as I know what the ommited part should be, it's also an easy way to explain an SC problem, right?

[gmat.acer]

Hi ,
In choice B, what two thing we're comparing (if it's not the cost)?
In choice B, it seems to me:
greater X than Y where X & Y are NOT similar things.
X=proportion Y=in any previous election

Can anybody please explain how B is making sense here?

there's ellipsis here. the understood comparison is a repeated instance of "proportion".
in contexts in which you would repeat a noun, you don't have to include the repeated noun; you may merely imply it. this is known as ellipsis.

for instance:
this year's heavyweight champion is shorter than last year's.
here, the second half of the comparison is clearly "last year's heavyweight champion", but you don't have to say "heavyweight champion" again.

Hi Ron,
What is the exact ellipsis that you mentioned here in choice (B)?
You mentioned above :

there's ellipsis here. the understood comparison is a repeated instance of "proportion".

Does this mean choice (B) with ellipsis would read as follows?

"Soaring television costs accounted for X, a greater proportion than (the proportion) in any previous election."

Kindly explain.

-Vaibhav.

[tim]

Violet, to answer your question, it is certainly not wrong to include the information that otherwise could have been in an ellipsis. There is never anything wrong with spelling everything out clearly and completely. I'm not sure what you are asking about though when you ask if something is an easy way to explain a sentence correction problem..

Vaibhav, I think you have the right idea with the ellipsis..

[jp.jprasanna]

by the way, this sort of modifier (COMMA + ABSTRACT NOUN) can be used to refer back to the WHOLE IDEA of the preceding clause.

let's say that scientists discover that X is 60 percent of Y, and that they are shocked by this finding.

then:
recent studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, which has shocked many in the scientific community.
incorrect.
this sentence implies that Y itself has shocked many in the scientific community. that's not true.

recent studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a finding that has shocked many in the scientific community.
or
recent studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a statistic that has shocked many in the scientific community.
these are correct.
the abstract noun "finding" or "statistic" may refer to the whole idea of the preceding clause.

in fact, that's the whole point of these modifiers. they are fatally awkward in spoken language (i.e., you can NEVER EVER say them out loud), but they do things that more "normal-sounding" modifiers (such as "which") aren't allowed to do.

for 2 problems that use this sort of modifier, see:
* #59 in the purple OG verbal supplement (in which this sort of modifier is present in the NON underlined section)
* #79 in the same source (in which it's present in the correct answer choice)

I have two questions here:

1. The computer company has announced that it will purchase the color-printing division of a rival company for $950 million, a part of a deal that makes it the largest manufacturer in the office color-printing market.

Here, Ron has explained that 'a part of a deal' (which is also a comma + abstract noun) modifies $950 million and that's why the above sentence is incorrect.
Refer: the-computer-company-has-announced-that-it-will-purchase-the-t2673.html

So, how can we decide whether modifier (COMMA + ABSTRACT NOUN) is modifying preceding noun or the complete preceding clause?

2. recent studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a finding that has shocked many in the scientific community.

Is the above sentence not a run-on sentence joining two independent clause with a comma?

According to me, it should be changed to
recent studies have shown that X is 60 percent of Y, a finding that shocked many in the scientific community.

Please clarify these!!
Thanks!!

your two examples both have the same type of construction: abstract noun + relative pronoun + verb.
(a finding + that + verb)
thus, they have the same grammar. the only thing you changed is the tense of a verb: "has shocked" (present perfect) to "shocked" (past).

the latter doesn't make sense, because the present perfect ("have shown") would be assumed to have taken place before the past tense ("shocked"). that is illogical, because the scientists' reaction can't precede the study to which they are reacting.

Hi- I belive the 1st part is not answered... Could you please let us know how to identify the whether is it a abstract noun or a concrete noun. from the this link

(the-computer-company-has-announced-that-it-will-purchase-the-t2673.html )

i can see that "a part of a deal that makes" is a concrete noun that modifier $950 million, in this current SC under discussion " a greater proportion " stands for the complete idea of the previous clause - so is there a way to identify which type these nouns belongs to?


For Instance we now know and check for all SC for comma + Ing (below is from Ron's post from some other thread....)

(A)
it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause;

AND

(B)
one of the following is true:
(1) the "ing" action is SIMULTANEOUS with, and SUBORDINATE to, the main action;
- i ran down the sidewalk, flapping my arms wildly
(2) the "ing" action is a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the main action.
- i got a 100 on the most recent exam, bringing my average up to 91

Similarly can we do some check / POE to identify whether these are abstract or concete nouns? Thanks in anticipation.

[RonPurewal]

jp.jprasanna, please try to quote only the relevant part of a post. thanks.

So, how can we decide whether modifier (COMMA + ABSTRACT NOUN) is modifying preceding noun or the complete preceding clause?

basically, two things:

1/
you should know that these modifiers can modify either (a) the preceding noun or (b) the preceding clause/idea;

2/
you should use common sense, combined with the meaning of the sentence, to see which (if either) of these situations applies.
basically, if either (a) or (b) above works, then the modifier is fine.

[lakshay]

What does it refer to in A

it doesn't stand for anything at all.

the only singular nouns that precede it are "spending" and "the presidential campaign of 1992". clearly, neither of these is an appropriate antecedent, so this choice is just wrong.

, and what does they refer to in C? Can we use have been in C? Please help, thanks!

"they" would have to refer to "soaring television costs", by elimination: there aren't any other plural nouns.

literally, this makes no sense, since television costs weren't "soaring" in OTHER elections.
(note that you MUST take the pronoun to stand for "soaring television costs"; you are NOT allowed to extract just "television costs" and pretend that the pronoun stands only for that.)

"have been" is an even bigger problem, though, since it implies the presence of "accounting". you can't do this unless the word "accounting" is actually present elsewhere in the sentence; it isn't.

Why can't "it" in the original sentence refer to the "proportion", which is also the closest noun, and thus make sense ?