In 1914 a total cars and trucks

[RonPurewal]

also, Choice A is wrong because of "numbers" or because of "the", compared to Choice B?

Both of those are problematic.
"Numbers" doesn't make sense. We're talking about a single number, not about more than one number.
"The number" doesn't indicate that we are referring to the previously mentioned number.

[manhhiep2509]

Hi Ron.

Does "the numbers" in the original sentence convey the same meaning as "the bird's numbers" in "the bird's numbers has declined steadily"?

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron.

Does "the numbers" in the original sentence convey the same meaning as "the bird's numbers" in "the bird's numbers has declined steadily"?

"X's numbers" is a unique, idiomatic way to say "the population of X".
That form is VERY specific"”you can't even write it as "the numbers of X".

So, in response to the question:

* No. The form that appears in this sentence is totally different, and the two sentences have completely different meanings.

[RonPurewal]

Also"”"Numbers" (as you quoted) appears in an incorrect answer. There's no sense in trying to nail down exact meanings of things that aren't even correct"”unless that meaning is the crux of why the choice is wrong.

("Numbers" is wrong, in that choice, because we're talking about only one number: the number of trucks.)

[rustom.hakimiyan]

Hi -- I realize that we are supposed to use "themselves" to emphasize a specific component of the sentence, and I thought that twice as many of the trucks -- the trucks need to be emphasized and therefore crossed out A and B. Why isn't that the correct thought process?

Additionally, I was always under the assumption that "two times the number" and "twice as many" were two separate idioms. I thought that "twice the number" was unidiomatic. I'm guessing that my assumption is wrong there as well since the OA uses it.

I had picked D because, I thought, that D did a clear job contrasting the number of cars and trucks to just trucks by themselves.

[RonPurewal]

Hi -- I realize that we are supposed to use "themselves" to emphasize a specific component of the sentence,

1/
"themselves" ≠ "by themselves".

2/
where did you see this? in what context?
this sounds suspiciously like an observation pulled from a fundamentally different context--and most likely in reference to just "themselves" (i.e., NOT "by themselves")--and misappropriated here.

[RonPurewal]

Additionally, I was always under the assumption that "two times the number" and "twice as many" were two separate idioms. I thought that "twice the number" was unidiomatic. I'm guessing that my assumption is wrong there as well since the OA uses it.

there's nothing wrong with "twice ____", as long as "____" is some sort of numerical quantity.
twice the price/amount/extent/duration/quantity/number/average/rate/etc.

the last two choices, however, are problematic, because "twice as many trucks" must mean exactly that--i.e., twice as many trucks. as in, 2 • (previous # of trucks).
this sentence contains no information about the previous number of trucks; there's only a combined figure for trucks and cars. so, that doesn't work.

"that number", by contrast, refers to the number actually cited, regardless of what it's originally counting.
e.g., Ray has four children and twice that number of suits --> ray has 4 kids and 8 suits.

[rustom.hakimiyan]

the last two choices, however, are problematic, because "twice as many trucks" must mean exactly that--i.e., twice as many trucks. as in, 2 • (previous # of trucks).
this sentence contains no information about the previous number of trucks; there's only a combined figure for trucks and cars. so, that doesn't work.

"that number", by contrast, refers to the number actually cited, regardless of what it's originally counting.
e.g., Ray has four children and twice that number of suits --> ray has 4 kids and 8 suits.

Got it. It was a lack of understanding the meaning -- wasn't taking it literal enough.

Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome

[douyang]

Really appreciate the discussion in the previous posts~

However, after reading all posts above, I am still not clear with the subject concerning the latter part of the right sentence--- "but in 1929 almost twice that number of trucks alone came off the assembly lines"

Apparentlly, according to the author's intent, the subject should be "trucks", which come off the assembly lines.

And my question is that does the structure---that number of---function as "a number of", whose subject is in an Of-prepositional phrase(from manhattan sc 5th P46)

thanks for your reply~

The grammar discussion here is way over my head. Here's a simple explanation:

If you see twice as many X's, or [i]half as many X's, or three times this/that number of X's, etc. -- just treat it in the same way you'd treat "two X's" or "twenty X's" or whatever.

So:
Two trucks came off the assembly line.
Twice as many trucks came off the assembly line.
Three times the previous number of trucks came off the assembly line.
Etc.

What's the difference between "twice as many" and "twice as many as"? I thought that "as many as" is correct idiom.

[RonPurewal]

this is one of those things that's hard to explain in words, but spectacularly easy to understand when you look at any decent set of examples.

consider the following sentences (both are correct):

Ellie threw the ball farther than her brother did.

Ellie's brother threw the ball quite a distance, but Ellie threw it even farther.

you should be able to see what's happening in the second sentence. basically, there's no need for 'than'.
the second half of the comparison was already stated earlier, so, to write the actual comparison ('farther'), we don't need to write it again.

[RonPurewal]

in fact, you can illustrate 'as... (as...)' with exactly the same sentences, just making the appropriate substitutions:

Ellie threw the ball twice as far as her brother did.

Ellie's brother threw the ball quite a distance, but Ellie threw it twice as far.

[douyang]

this is one of those things that's hard to explain in words, but spectacularly easy to understand when you look at any decent set of examples.

consider the following sentences (both are correct):

Ellie threw the ball farther than her brother did.

Ellie's brother threw the ball quite a distance, but Ellie threw it even farther.

you should be able to see what's happening in the second sentence. basically, there's no need for 'than'.
the second half of the comparison was already stated earlier, so, to write the actual comparison ('farther'), we don't need to write it again.

Thank you Ron. Those are great examples.

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[KathyL227]

In 1914 a total of 469,000 cars and trucks were produced in the United States, but in 1929 almost twice the numbers of trucks alone came off the assembly lines


A) Same
b) that number of trucks alone
c) the number of trucks by themselves
d) as many trucks themselves
e) as many trucks by themselves
OA : B
GPrep Q

Got stuck between B and D ..

Isn't twice as many as ..correct usage ?

Thanks

two problems with (d).

#1
the meaning of the sentence is that the number of trucks in 1929 was almost twice 469,000.
choice (b) conveys this idea accurately, with the phrase "twice that number". see, "that number" must refer to an actual number cited in the sentence, and there is only one such number. mission accomplished.
choice (d) DOES NOT convey this idea. that choice says "twice AS MANY trucks", which means "twice as many trucks as were produced in 1914".
the problem is that the sentence doesn't tell us how many trucks were produced in 1914 - the only figure given is a combined figure for cars and trucks - so this statement doesn't make any sense in context.
not to mention, the intended meaning (from the original flawed sentence) is clearly that of (b).

#2
"trucks themselves" doesn't make sense.
you don't use "x itself" unless you are trying to emphasize some element of the inherent nature of x (as opposed to something associated with x, or with some part of x).
example: pet accessories are becoming more and more popular, even though pets themselves have maintained constant popularity.
i.e., we want to emphasize that the second part of the sentence deals with pets themselves (as opposed to associated things such as pet accessories).
"trucks alone", though, makes perfect sense.

"trucks BY themselves" is getting closer to the intended idea, but it's still wrong (it seems to be in contrast to "trucks sold in packages with other things").

Hi Ron,

Dose the expression " by themselves" conveys the idea that the trucks came off the assembly line automatically by themselves?

Someone explained to me in that way, but I want to confirm with native speakers of English.

Thank you.

Kathy