Verbal problems from the *free* official practice tests and
problems from mba.com
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: In 1981 children in the United states

by RonPurewal Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:12 am

MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY

You should not think in terms of "generalizations".

If you formulate a "generalization", you should think of it as, at best, an extremely ugly intermediate. Your goal is to...
... convert the generalization into EXAMPLES
... remember the examples
... forget the generalization.


To do otherwise"”i.e., to think in terms of the generalization itself"”is basically impossible, unless you have unlimited time. (It took me six minutes to have any idea what your generalization was even saying in the first place. Not because the writing is bad"”the writing is fine"”but because the human brain just doesn't work like that.)

This is not just an SC thing. This is the way humans understand ALL ideas that have any complexity whatsoever.
E.g., think about "being a jerk".
If someone asked you what "jerk" meant, you would almost certainly not try to give a general definition. Instead, you'd just start listing examples of "jerky" behavior. (Slamming doors in people's faces. Insulting people. Etc.)
Putting those examples together mentally is easy. Creating a general definition is just about impossible.

Work with your brain, not against it.
CheungT939
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 8:36 pm
 

Re: In 1981 children in the United states

by CheungT939 Sun Jun 15, 2014 5:00 am

thank you Ron for your answers, I have understood the whole issue now.

Just one question about the use of "figure" "the number"

I understand that these words are use to represent things such as:
% of .... , proportion of xxxx, etc...

However, I don't understand when should we use "that figure" vs "the figure"
and also "that number" vs "the number"


thanks
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: In 1981 children in the United states

by RonPurewal Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:52 pm

The GMAT doesn't test "a"/"an"/"the", so it's unlikely that this will be an issue.

In any case, you can just think about how you'd use "the ____" and "that ____" in spoken language. The written usage is quite similar (with the exception that it's impossible to point at things and say "That one").

"The ____":
- there's only one ____ in the first place (e.g., Look on the Nordstrom website "”"”> There's only one Nordstrom website)
"- "____" is followed by modifiers that uniquely identify it (e.g., Look on the website I told you about yesterday "”"”> I only told you about one website yesterday)

"That ____":
"- I've already clarified the identity of the ____ earlier in the sentence, and now I'm referring to it. (I have 20 pairs of shoes. My brother has twice that number of pairs of sneakers alone, not even counting his dress shoes. "”"”> He has 40 pairs of sneakers.)
77044388
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:57 am
 

Re: In 1981 children in the United states

by 77044388 Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:43 am

RonPurewal Wrote:
zhuyujun Wrote:Hi Jonathon,

As you mentioned 'they' in A is clear and correct, then what's wrong with A? Could you please explain? Thanks!


hmm.

well, the meaning of the problem (which is clear to me - and, apparently according to the gmat people, clear to everyone else too) is that the kids were spending that many hours per week by 1997.

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.

--

analogy:

in 1980 forty percent of East High School class graduated; 67% of the class had graduated by 1997.
--> wrong. this would mean that half of the 1980 class had graduated at any time prior to 1997.

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).


Ron, I have 2 questions here:

1. In 1981 children in the United States spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing household chores; by 1997 they spent nearly six hours a week.

removed "had", the sentence is correct?

2.as you mentioned there are 2 situation to use "had ___ed" showed below, I do not understand that the past perfect tense in the answer B below is belong to which one?

In 1981 children in the United States spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing household chores; by 1997 that figure had grown to nearly six hours a week.




---------------
When you use "had ___ed" for the earlier of two events, you're implying one of two things.
1/ The earlier event continued up to the time of the later one (By the time I saw the doctor, I had been sick for 5 days);
2/ The earlier event had a definite impact on the later one (I did not eat at the restaurant, since I had already eaten at home).

If there is no such relationship, then "had ___ed" doesn't make sense. In that case, the past tense is normally used for both things (Before she became a fashion designer, Laura was an astrophysicist.)
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: In 1981 children in the United states

by RonPurewal Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:51 am

77044388 Wrote:1. In 1981 children in the United States spent an average of slightly less than two and a half hours a week doing household chores; by 1997 they spent nearly six hours a week.

removed "had", the sentence is correct?


No. Still wrong. The past tense is incompatible with "by (date)".
I don't know whether GMAC has ever tested this issue, so I'll hold off on explaining it unless someone can mention an example from an official problem.

More generally, allow me to give the usual admonition"”"”
Don't edit GMAC's sentences.
Don't.
Do not edit them.

When random forum posters try to edit GMAC's sentences, they almost always create something that is...
... incorrect, but
... not actually tested on this exam.

If you have a question about a particular construction, try to make your own SIMPLE sentence(s) involving that construction.
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: In 1981 children in the United states

by RonPurewal Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:51 am

2.as you mentioned there are 2 situation to use "had ___ed" showed below, I do not understand that the past perfect tense in the answer B below is belong to which one?


If you want to create a third category, "to emphasize the completion of an event/procedure", you can create that category. This is really just an instance of case #2: By that time, this process (= the increase in the time spent on chores) had increased by X amount.

It's like saying "I have finished 80% of my homework".

In either case, I'm NOT emphasizing the actual action of the verb (grown, finished). I'm emphasizing the current situation (or the situation in the timeframe of the sentence, in the case of the GMAC problem).
I.e., my point is not to emphasize the actual growth of the number; my point is to emphasize the result of that growth. ("Wow, that's a really big number now!") Hence "has/had grown".
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: In 1981 children in the United states

by RonPurewal Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:55 am

In fact, it seems I've already written a whole thing about this in another thread.

post58397.html#p58397

Check it out.
cherryj222
Students
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 8:59 pm
 

Re: In 1981 children in the United states

by cherryj222 Sun Sep 07, 2014 12:47 am

JonathanSchneider Wrote:Hi Lawrence,

lawrencewwh Wrote:A. chores; by 1997 they had spent nearly six hours
a week

"they" may refer to "chores" or "chinldren".

B. chores; by 1997 that figure had grown to nearly
six hours a week

C. chores, whereas nearly six hours a week were
spent in 1997
"whereas " is an indication of parelle, but C is not parelle.
"six hours a week" is singular and requires "was" instead of "were".


D. chores, compared with a figure of nearly six hours
a week in 1997
"compared" means that "children"be compared wth a figure, so the logical meaning is wrong.

E. chores, that figure growing to nearly six hours a
week in 1997
"growing" is wrong because the time is "in 1997".
quote]

A) Actually, the "they" is okay here. "They" is a subject pronoun, and the preference for matching a subject pronoun is to the subject that came before it. "Children" was the subject of the preceding clause, so this is the antecedent. No issue here. (Note, this really only works when that antecedent is not super far away from the pronoun. Moreover, it doesn't work well when there are a lot of other plural nouns in the way. And finally, it works best when the idea following the pronoun is similar in meaning to the idea following the antecedent. Notice that in this case we have a semicolon, setting up a very parallel structure, making the "they" even more clear.)

C) You are correct that the construction is not parallel, primarily because it is in passive voice. However, "six hours" is in fact plural.

D) I would argue that the "compared" here sounds like it might be describing the "chores," as that is the noun immediately before the noun modifier.

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.

As to your second post, I think the meaning here is actually pretty clear: we mean to say that the figure grew to 6 hours over the time period up to 1997. However, this shows that the figure was NOT at 6 hours at the beginning of this time period. (It must have been lower in order to grow up to 6 hours.) We use the past perfect because we have a specific marker of time (1997), before which the growing took place.


Hi experts. Your explaination of choice D seems to be inconsistent with another prep problem. Why does not "as compared to…" in the sentence modify "blue-collar workers"?
Here is the problem: A recent review of pay scales indicates that, on average, CEO's now earn an average of 419 times the pay of blue-collar workers, as compared to 42 times their pay, the ratio in 1980.
Could you please explain again? Many thanks.
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: In 1981 children in the United states

by RonPurewal Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:34 am

"Compared with" isn't the problem there. That construction can be used with a fair degree of freedom, as long as it's comparing 2 statistics.

"A figure of xxx hours" is a redundant expression. It's just "xxx hours". To represent the same statistic elsewhere in the sentence, "that figure", etc.
momo32
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2014 1:19 am
 

Re: In 1981 children in the United states

by momo32 Thu Oct 09, 2014 11:27 am

Dear Ron,

After reading the old postings, I still cannot understand why A is wrong.

The meaning of this problem is to let us compare the graduate rate between 1981 and 1997?

I think the structure of choice A and B is the same.
Why choice b does not mean that the figure had grown prior to any time before 1997.

THX
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: In 1981 children in the United states

by RonPurewal Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:05 am

momo32 Wrote:I think the structure of choice A and B is the same.
Why choice b does not mean that the figure had grown prior to any time before 1997.

THX


that's exactly what choice (b) means. the growth occurred between 1981 and 1997.
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: In 1981 children in the United states

by RonPurewal Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:07 am

in other words, you are absolutely correct in asserting that the implied timeframes in (a) and (b) are the same.

what you're not considering, though, is that this timeframe is inappropriate for "had spent" but appropriate for "had grown".
• "spent" SHOULD describe what was happening IN 1997.
• "had grown" describes something that happened BEFORE 1997, as you pointed out above--and exactly as the context implies.
DevanshN3
Students
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 8:27 am
 

Re: In 1981 children in the United states

by DevanshN3 Tue Aug 23, 2016 2:15 pm

Hello,

While I completely agree that GMAT answers are 100% correct and we should learn from it rather than questioning it, your response to my following doubt would really help me to tackle other questions of this pattern that the GMAT might throw on me at the test day. :)

1.) I rejected choices B,C and D because I thought "Figure" and "Six hours" are redundant. Am I wrong ?
2.) If not, then does Structure parallelism (Parallel voices) takes priority over redundancy ?

Very Respectfully,
Devansh :)
RonPurewal
Students
 
Posts: 19744
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:23 am
 

Re: In 1981 children in the United states

by RonPurewal Fri Aug 26, 2016 6:27 am

1/
this reasoning eliminates the correct answer, so, clearly, it's wrong.

those words are in separate clauses -- in other words, separate sentences functionally. therefore there is no issue of "redundancy".

2/
i don't know what you are referring to, but there is no issue of parallelism in this problem.
DDB
Course Students
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 7:20 am
 

Re: In 1981 children in the United states

by DDB Wed Sep 07, 2016 9:19 pm

Hi All,

Thank you very much for the information. It is very appreciated.

I had a grammatical question about the correct answer B.

B. chores; by 1997 that figure had grown to nearly
six hours a week

Choice B includes a semi-colon, meaning that both sentences must have a noun and verb. In other examples I have seen, "that" is used as a essential modifier, and a clause after the "that" is not the subject and verb of the sentence.

Why then is the clause after this "that" considered a full sentence. Is my understanding of the various usages of "that" incorrect?

Thanks