The number of people flying first

[FanPurewal]

wonderful explanation！ got it！ very clear

thank you Jlucero！

[tim]

Glad to hear it!

[eggpain24]

Hi, Ron

in choice A

I remember you say that when we have a construction like" main clause, verbing" → verbing must make sense with the subject of the main clause



Thus，I just confused that can “ the number of people” can “double the increase“

I dont mean to question the official correct answer, I am just doubtful

try to figure out why it is right rather than question its correctness.

Thank you!

[jingjiaol257]

in this case, you can't use "..., twice as many as...", because that's an appositive modifier. appositives must modify some noun that comes IMMEDIATELY before the comma, which in this case would have to be whatever figure is twice whatever other figure. since no such figure is given, you can't use this construction.

so, A, B or C

by contrast, the -ING FOLLOWED BY A COMMA modifies the entire action of the preceding clause. this is exactly what you want to happen, because the actual rising of the # of people flying first class is what "doubled the increase of...". there's no noun in there that pinpoints this concept, so you have to use a modifier that modifies the entire clause.

hi ron
i read another post about appositive modifier.Your answer in that post and the answer in this post confuse me.
While studying the genetic makeup of corn, a new class of mutant genes was discovered by Barbara McClintock, a discovery which led to greater understanding of cell differentiation.

A) a new class of mutant genes was discovered by Barbara McClintock, a discovery which led

b) a new class of mutant genes in corn were discovered by Barbara McClintock, leading

c) Barbara McClintock discovered a new class of mutant genes, and it led

d) Barbara McClintock discovered a new class of mutant genes, a discovery that led

e) Barbara McClintock, who discovered a new class of mutant genes, leading
in that post you said "a finding" is that "discovery described in the sentence" .But in this post,you said appositives must modify some noun that comes IMMEDIATELY before the comma.i'm confused. is it because "a finding" is not appositives modifier?
Thanks!

[cherryj222]

The simplified expression is: X is twice Y
The word that "that" is replacing is the full noun phrase X: "the amount of money I have"

So the meaning is:
the amount of money I have is twice that (the amount of money I have) you have[/quote]

Hi, I am confused about the explanation above, because I have seen another sentence, in which "that" clearly refers to only part of the noun phrase.
Here is the sentence: His work is produced more often than that of any other contempopary German dramatist. (here "that" refers to work only but not his work)
Am I wrong? Could someone help me?

[RonPurewal]

To what, exactly, are you responding?

This thread is over 100 posts long, and your post doesn't seem to constitute a response to anything on the last page. Please quote the material to which you are responding.

Thanks.

[JhanasC520]

Ron, if you think, as you said in the first quote, "energy was generated in 1990" is already a sentence, so the following sentence is incorrect:
more than 10 times as much energy is generated through wind power now as energy was generated [in] 1990.
Then, how could you say the below sentence is correct? Since there is also a sentence "i read in the preceding year" after the "as".
last year i read 40 books, twice as many as i read in the preceding year.

In this context it's not complete, since the object of "read" is missing from the second part.
That missing object is "books""”the focus of the comparison itself. That's why the comparison works.

If this isn't clear, the confusion may result from the fact that "read" can also be used without an object, to describe the general act of reading (I'm going to lie down and read). But, in this sentence, it's clear that we're talking about reading a specific thing both times.

To make this more clear, just construct an analogous sentence using a verb that does require an object, e.g., "say":
John has said more words in the last 10 minutes than he said all of last year.
"Said" can't ever be used without an object, so it's probably much more obvious why the right-hand side is not a standalone sentence here.

Dear Ron,

as you mentioned above, last year i read 40 books, twice as many as i read in the preceding year.[/quote]; this sentence is incorrect.

But I read a similar sentence structure in Manhattan SC, could you please help explain this?

We have 10 apples, about as many as we picked yesterday.

In this sentence, of the second part, there is also no noun (the object of pick)after as many as.

Many thanks for your reply.

[RonPurewal]

that's a correct example.

the point of that post is that, if you try to write the part after "as many as" alone, it won't work as a complete sentence; it won't contain all the necessary parts.

e.g.,
Rachel has seen more movies this month than she saw during all of last year.
(correctly written)
--> the point is that "she saw during all of last year", alone, is not a sentence. (saw what? we need an object.)
if this part WERE a complete sentence by itself, then it would not work after "more than".

same idea with the sentence in your quote.

[soulwangh]

Hi Ron,

According to surveys by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, about 20 percent of young adults used cocaine in 1979, doubling the number reported in the 1977 survey.

No, because "doubling xxxx" means that xxxx itself is actually raised to 2 times its original value.

The number from the 1977 survey is not going to change anytime after 1977, so that doesn't make sense.

(E.g., Smith hit 50 home runs this season, doubling his career total.
--> This makes sense. Previously, Smith's career total was 50 home runs. Now, his career total is 100 home runs.)

However, in the quote below, you said:

You can double the number of young adults, but you can't "double" the young adults themselves.
You can only double quantities, amounts, or other numerical things. You can't "double" a physical entity.

An "increase" is a numerical quantity, so "doubling the increase" makes perfect sense.

It seems the two quotes conflict with each other.
And I don't see significant differences between these two sentences.

According to surveys by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, about 20 percent of young adults used cocaine in 1979, doubling the number reported in the 1977 survey.

The number of people flying first class on domestic flights rose sharply in 1990, doubling the increase of the the previous year.(Correct )

If the reason why the first one is wrong is "The number from the 1977 survey is not going to change anytime after 1977, so that doesn't make sense".
I can still argue "the increase of the previous year is not going to change anytime after that year".

Please help!

[RonPurewal]

[duplicate post edited]

[RonPurewal]

even if you're using that criterion, this sentence is still ok, since it's a continuous increase (starting in the previous year, and continuing into the year under discussion). so, the "doubling" is, in essence, an extension of the same increase.

[BarbieC342]

Dear Ron:
After reading the whole thread, I have a question. You gave an example " Stanford's endowment is larger than that of any other university.
Stanford's endowment is larger than the endowment of any other university." In the first sentence, I understand that "that" may refer to " Stanford's endowment", in that case , the sentence is not logical. I guess my understanding is not right, can you correct me? Thank you very much!

[RonPurewal]

the whole point of the pronouns "that"/"those", in comparisons, is NOT to stand for the entire context of the noun. those two pronouns exist solely for that purpose.

"it"/"he"/"she"/"they" must carry the meaning of all the modifiers attached to the original noun. so, if you don't want to carry over all that context——which will be the case in every comparison sentence (since we're not comparing something to itself!)——then you can't use "it"/"he"/"she"/"they".
instead, we use "that"/"those", which are specifically designed for exactly that role: the role of "stand for something without attached modifiers".

if we wanted to refer again to stanford's endowment, we would use "it", not "that of...".

[JianchengD868]

The number of people flying first class on domestic flights rose sharply in 1990, doubling the increase of the the previous year.

a.
b. doubling that of the increase in
c. double as much as the increase of
d. twice as many as the increase in
e. twice as many as the increase of

GMAT Prep question

C is wrong because "double as much as" is not idiomatic. Is that right?

why "twice as much as" can be correct and "double as much as" can not be correct?

Pls, explain. Thank you

Hi Ron,
I am so sorry for bumping into the old thread here. I have the same puzzle as thanghnvn.
I have read all the post but don't find the answer to this question.
In my opinion, twice in "twice as much as" acts as adv, but double cannot be adv.
Is this the reason why we cannot say ""double as much as""?
Could you please confirm my point?
Thank you so much.

Regards,
JianchengD868

[RonPurewal]

that difference is basically just there to distract you. ("double as much..." is bad writing, but it's not objectively incorrect. thus, ignore.)

as usual, when you encounter a distracting difference (differences in word choice are almost always distractions)...
• ignore it
• go find something more fundamental.

in this problem, the modifiers in C, D, and E only make sense if placed after an actual statistic (that is 2 times some other statistic).

"doubling", on the other hand, refers to the action of doubling the old figure, and not to an actual statistic. therefore, this modifier makes perfect sense as a description of "...rose sharply".