In 1981 children in the United states

[RonPurewal]

Hi Ron - Isn't A wrong because of "they".. "they here seems to imply that the Children in 1981 who spent 2 1/2 weeks doing
household chores are the same children who have spent 6hr/wk by 1997?

no, that's fine. it stands for "children in the united states" -- a generality. (note that the sentence doesn't say the children who lived in the u.s. in 1981.)

you could also write the following:
in 1930, american companies employed an average of X number of people; in 1990, by contrast, they employed an average of Y number of people.
(in this situation you could also write "the figure had grown/shrunk to Y number by 1990".)

[amit1234]

is E only wrong because it is using 'in'.
Is the usage of 'that figure' is ok here.

...chores, that figure growing to nearly six hours a
week in 1997

[tim]

didn't Ron answer that in 2009?

[vikram4689]

instructors,
i think we can eliminate C, D and E solely on the basis that all of them uses "in 1997". although "in 1997" modifies differently in each of the options, none of these options conveys the idea that over the years amount of time spent increased from 2.5 hours to 6 hours. for the same reason, option C describing that, in 1997, 6 hours were spent is incorrect because only final result and not transition over time is conveyed

am i correct ?

[tim]

not at all. don't impose a meaning YOU want onto a sentence that otherwise makes perfect sense..

[vikram4689]

not at all. don't impose a meaning YOU want onto a sentence that otherwise makes perfect sense..

but tim i just found that similar reason was given by jonathan (mgmat instructor) at in-1981-children-in-the-united-states-t4406.html#p24030

E) Yes, by saying "in 1997," we sort of indicate that something happened in that specific year. Thus, it sounds as though all of the growing happened in 1997. Of course, we mean to say that the figure grew over time, not just in that one year.

i want to confirm the same for all 3 options: C, D and E

[tim]

depends on what the intended meaning of the sentence is. i agree with Jonathan that E conveys a meaning that is not intended. i also maintain that you are wrong to eliminate C and D for the same reasons..

[thanghnvn]

Still want to know why D is not correct. Thanks !

my best response to this is "they make the rules, so just learn this as "incorrect" and save it in your memory for future reference."

still, my justification:

it says "...compared with a figure of..."

to me, that's nonparallel. it would be parallel if one of the following 2 things were to be present:
(a) an explicit mention of the "figure" in the first half of the parallelism, so that there's actually something to compare to the "figure" mentioned in the second half;
(b) a direct comparison ("...compared with nearly 6 hours a week in 1997").

since this sentence doesn't do either, it's nonparallel.

I think it is hardest to eliminate D.

thank you Ron, could you present the example in which 2 above conditions are met and the sentence is considered correct. Please,

the second point.
I see that on gmat, normally "compared to/compared with" mofifies/refers to the subject of the previous clause or to the immediately preceding noun. is my thinking correct?

[thanghnvn]

sorry, I post the new problem.

regarding "comma+compared to/with"

I see that "comma+compared" can modifies the subject of previous clause. this situation apears in gmatprep

also, "comma+compared" can modifies the closest noun.

are 2 above points correct? pls explain.

Can I say that "comma+compared" can not modifies the noun in the middle of the previous clause ?

if the 3 above points are correct , I can eliminate D for 3 the points

I see that "comma+compared to/with" is different from "do-ed" . Can you detail the difference?

thank you Ron, and manhantan experts.

[jlucero]

Still want to know why D is not correct. Thanks !

my best response to this is "they make the rules, so just learn this as "incorrect" and save it in your memory for future reference."

still, my justification:

it says "...compared with a figure of..."

to me, that's nonparallel. it would be parallel if one of the following 2 things were to be present:
(a) an explicit mention of the "figure" in the first half of the parallelism, so that there's actually something to compare to the "figure" mentioned in the second half;
(b) a direct comparison ("...compared with nearly 6 hours a week in 1997").

since this sentence doesn't do either, it's nonparallel.

I think it is hardest to eliminate D.

thank you Ron, could you present the example in which 2 above conditions are met and the sentence is considered correct. Please,

the second point.
I see that on gmat, normally "compared to/compared with" mofifies/refers to the subject of the previous clause or to the immediately preceding noun. is my thinking correct?

(a) an explicit mention of the "figure" in the first half of the parallelism, so that there's actually something to compare to the "figure" mentioned in the second half;

The figure in 1997 was similar to the figure in 1996.


(b) a direct comparison ("...compared with nearly 6 hours a week in 1997").

In 1981 children in the United States spent an average
of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing
household chores compared with nearly 6 hours a week in 1997.

[jlucero]

sorry, I post the new problem.

regarding "comma+compared to/with"

I see that "comma+compared" can modifies the subject of previous clause. this situation apears in gmatprep

also, "comma+compared" can modifies the closest noun.

are 2 above points correct? pls explain.

Can I say that "comma+compared" can not modifies the noun in the middle of the previous clause ?

if the 3 above points are correct , I can eliminate D for 3 the points

I see that "comma+compared to/with" is different from "do-ed" . Can you detail the difference?

thank you Ron, and manhantan experts.

Parallelism/comparisons can occur anywhere in a sentence, as long as the elements are clearly parallel. There isn't one word that an item must be parallel to, but its generally understood to be the closest word that is similar in structure. If you want to make the word parallel to a word further away, you must include parallel elements that clearly express this:

My parents say that I like to eat in expensive restaurants and museums
vs
My parents say that I like to eat in expensive restaurants and to visit museums
vs
My parents say that I like to eat in expensive restaurants and that I visit museums

Notice the word after the parallel marker "and" helps dictate where the first parallel element should be.

[jyothi h]

depends on what the intended meaning of the sentence is. i agree with Jonathan that E conveys a meaning that is not intended. i also maintain that you are wrong to eliminate C and D for the same reasons..

Hi,
I cant figure out the reason why "in" in option C and D does not change the intended meaning as it does in option E. I eliminated C ,D and E because of the usage of "IN" .
I guess this is a little too technical or what , not sure - but the original sentence intends to say that during a course of a couple of years , the children spent/had spent , 6 hrs . Sort of indicates that average of number of hrs spent from 1982 to 1997 , they had spent 6 hrs .As per this understanding I thought , C and D also implied that in 1997 they spent 6 hrs. I could be wrong with my analysis.
Appreciate , if you could help explain this point .

[jlucero]

Let's compare the three:

C. whereas nearly six hours a week were spent in 1997
D. compared with a figure of nearly six hours a week in 1997
E. that figure growing to nearly six hours a week in 1997

Notice that E uses an -ing participle to indicate that the figure grew only during 1997.

With C/D, it doesn't talk about the change over time... it simply states that the number was different in 1997. This is a better meaning, because it leaves open the option that the change did not happen during just that year but instead happened gradually.

[Haibara]

Ron, maybe because I'm not a native-speaker, the precise connotation of present perfect tense and past perfect tense left me in a muddle.

So I have to take a few examples：

Jeff has taught mathematics for three years.
---->The above sentence implies that Jeff is still teaching math now?

Jeff has taught mathematics.
----> This sentence implies that Jeff taught math sometime in the past, but is no longer teaching maths now?

Jeff has taught mathematics since he moved to LA.
---->This sentence implies that Jeff is still teaching math or not? I have no sense about it.

The server has performed well in the past 5 years.
----> This sentence signifies that the server is still in good performance now？

The server had performed well by 2010.
----> This sentence indicates that the server was in good performance at a point before 2010, but not so in 2010 and thereafter?

The server had performed well until 2010.
---->This sentence indicates that the server had been in good performance continuously before 2010, but somehow fell to do so in 2010 and thereafter?

Cayla had owned the house before her mother passed away.
----->Does that mean Cayla owned the house at a point before her mother died, but Cayla might not own the house at the moment her mother died?

Concerning Choice A of the original problem, you said

if you say "they had spent six hours a week by 1997", all this means is that they had gotten to 6 hrs/wk AT SOME POINT before 1997. it doesn't mean that they're still working that much.

in 1980 forty percent of East High School class graduated; by 1997 the figure had grown to 67%.
--> correct. this would mean that 67% of the '97 class graduated (which is what we mean).

Then I wonder does the above sentence mean the figure had reached 67% at some point before 1997, and then it might fell to a lower value at the end of 1997 and thereafter?

Ron, from your words, how come a mathematical quantity using past perfect tense can convey the idea intended , while an action using past perfect tense can not?

And another question regarding Choice D.
In 1981 children in the United States spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing household chores, compared with a figure of nearly six hours a week in 1997

In 1981 children in the United States spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing household chores, compared with nearly six hours a week in 1997

The first sentence is Choice D, the latter one is what listed by Joe.
What is the magic about the three words "a figure of " that makes Choice D grammatically incorrect but Joe's example grammatically correct? Ron, I've seen your explanation above about Choice D. But I just can't tell how it relates to Joe's example.

Again, sorry for this long post.
Please help me out of the woods, thank you very very much.

[RonPurewal]

Haibara, remember that you don't need to understand anything beyond the basics of these tenses for the GMAT. It's a mistake to try to develop an extremely nuanced understanding of verb tenses.

The problem with verb tenses is that they are entirely based on context. So, if an example doesn't contain much context, verb tenses are often ambiguous.

Jeff has taught mathematics for three years.
---->The above sentence implies that Jeff is still teaching math now?

Could be either way.
"I have been sick for 5 days" could mean (a) ... and I'm still sick, or (b) ... and I just got well again right now.

Jeff has taught mathematics.
----> This sentence implies that Jeff taught math sometime in the past, but is no longer teaching maths now?

Without a timeframe, that's the implication (else one would just write "Jeff teaches mathematics").