In 1914 a total cars and trucks

[kramacha1979]

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

[RonPurewal]

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").

[tina_2c]

and why is A wrong?
would A be right if it said "twice the number" ?

thanks

[ppin]

Hey,
In option-A, no comparison one can found between trucks/cars with trucks alone, moreover its a trap by not infusing any word and S-V agreement (numbers in place of number).

Rgds,

[tim]

Tina, i think ppin is on the right track in answering your question. You need the word "that" to identify specifically what number your are referring to. "the" doesn't point back to a specific item earlier in the sentence the way "that" does, and leaves a huge ambiguity you could drive 938,000 trucks through.. :)

[sachin.w]

I am trying to understand the usage of 'alone' here.

Please let me know what is intended meaning of 'alone' in this sentence.

[tim]

"alone" means "by itself", i.e. just trucks in this case (rather than cars and trucks)..

[sachin.w]

"by itself" indicates that truck came off the assembly line by itself.

Please correct me in case it's wrong.


I guess ' just trucks ' is the correct intended meaning.

[tim]

that's why we use the word "alone" - "by itself" just doesn't cut it! sounds like you at least get the general idea now; let me know if you have any other questions..

[jay871750293]

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~

[RonPurewal]

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.

[jay871750293]

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.

thank you so much~ Ron~
I will remember your explanation!

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome

[Haibara]

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).

Sorry，Ron. I'm lost here, because of the explanation in the quote.
Please help. If you judge that choice D does not convey the exact number of trucks that came off the assembly lines in 1929, how could you confirm that Choice B does? "that number of trucks alone"
is unclear from the context, as you suggested. The only number that we get from the context is 469,000, which stands for the number of cars and trucks combined. So, even if choice B says "twice that number of trucks alone", we still don't know the actual number of trucks that came off the assembly lines in 1929.
So what do I miss here?

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

Please help me to sort it out.
Many thanks.

[RonPurewal]

Sorry，Ron. I'm lost here, because of the explanation in the quote.
Please help. If you judge that choice D does not convey the exact number of trucks that came off the assembly lines in 1929, how could you confirm that Choice B does? "that number of trucks alone"

Perhaps you didn't take the time to understand what the sentence is trying to say.

The point of the sentence is that, in 1914, the total number of cars + trucks was around 469,000. By 1929, production had expanded so much that the number of trucks"”just trucks"”was almost 2 x 469,000.
So, "that number" is still 469,000.