The number of people flying first

[JianchengD868]

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".

Dear Ron,
I cannot thank you more.

When I study the sentence correction questions, I will try my best to review every difference in choices and even want to apply to other questions.
However, just as you said, some differences are only made to distract us and we don't need to distinguish them.
There is little official explanation for the differences excepting the main splits. We don't know whether our points fit the test, so the effort may be counterproductive.

Your points always hit the nail on the head. Thank you again for your constructive and practicable comments.

Kind regards,
Jiancheng

[RonPurewal]

sure.

incidentally, one of the principal reasons for testing SC, in its current format, is this whole notion of setting priorities: if you can see major issues, you'll do well. if you try to treat everything as a top priority, you'll do ... less well.

in this sense, the problems reflect the nature of management (where the people taking this exam are eventually headed). management is fundamentally about setting priorities: for every 1 thing to which a manager must actually pay attention, there are 999 things that (s)he must ignore (or delegate to others).

[RonPurewal]

incidentally, this aspect of the exam (see above post) tends to be particularly hard for software engineers, because software engineering is intrinsically the opposite: a bug is a bug is a bug, and ALL bugs are "priority 1". the goal is to fix ALL the bugs, not just the "highest-priority" ones.
if you try to approach SC that way, the result will be an absolute disaster--in terms of both performance and time management.

on the other hand, for this group, the change of mentality required to do well on SC will also have more, further-reaching consequences, especially in terms of effective managerial skills.

[JianchengD868]

incidentally, this aspect of the exam (see above post) tends to be particularly hard for software engineers, because software engineering is intrinsically the opposite: a bug is a bug is a bug, and ALL bugs are "priority 1". the goal is to fix ALL the bugs, not just the "highest-priority" ones.
if you try to approach SC that way, the result will be an absolute disaster--in terms of both performance and time management.

on the other hand, for this group, the change of mentality required to do well on SC will also have more, further-reaching consequences, especially in terms of effective managerial skills.

Dear Ron,

You're awesome. That is what I did. I am an engineering and I really lack the ability to identify the major problems.
You are a great help to me. I enjoyed the great benefit of your instructions.
Thank you so much.

kind regards,
Jiancheng

[RonPurewal]

read this post:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p113616

in that post i'm making essentially the same point, but with a particularly pointed analogy. (if an emergency-room doctor doesn't think first about high-priority items, then people will die.)

under those (literally life-and-death) circumstances, would you be able to focus on the big issues first?

the answer is probably yes. (i'd imagine that there are VERY few people who would still be distracted by petty concerns if someone's life was on the line.)

if the answer is indeed yes, then you're capable of the right kind of thinking-- it just has to seem important (as it obviously does in the emergency-room example).

[JianchengD868]

read this post:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ml#p113616

in that post i'm making essentially the same point, but with a particularly pointed analogy. (if an emergency-room doctor doesn't think first about high-priority items, then people will die.)

under those (literally life-and-death) circumstances, would you be able to focus on the big issues first?

the answer is probably yes. (i'd imagine that there are VERY few people who would still be distracted by petty concerns if someone's life was on the line.)

if the answer is indeed yes, then you're capable of the right kind of thinking-- it just has to seem important (as it obviously does in the emergency-room example).

Dear Ron,

You are amazing.
It really happened to me. When I first did SC questions, I only knew some basic rules and the accuracy was about 70%. However, I did worse and worse on my SC questions after I did lots of questions. I have taken GMAT three times, but I really worked hard.

It's easy for me to forget to use these basic but essential rules. I seem to enjoy complicating problems. What a stupid I was.
My next test comes on May 7. I decide to forget the rules summarized by myself and only use basic rules to crack questions. I need to build up a habit to focus on the fundamentals first.

Thank you so much. Hope I can get 700 this time.

kind regards,
Jiancheng

[RonPurewal]

It's easy for me to forget to use these basic but essential rules. I seem to enjoy complicating problems. What a stupid I was.

you're not alone here. in fact, this is no less than a fundamental problem of human psychology.

when people struggle with something that is (or can be) simple, you might think they would try to ... well, simplify the issue.
unfortunately, this isn't what happens.**

instead, the universal human reaction is to formulate artificial complexity, to justify the apparent challenge of the issue.
in other words, if we were to admit that we struggled with / failed at something that's simple, it would be a massive blow to the ego. so, to preserve the ego, our brains basically pretend that simple things are actually complicated.

best example ever: alcoholism.
alcoholism is, in reality, one of the simplest problems imaginable. ("alcohol? NO." ...and that's pretty much the whole thing, ladies and gentlemen.)
but, when someone becomes an alcoholic, (s)he invents all sorts of complex rationalizations-- "This social situation...", "Pressure from ...", etc.-- that don't really exist in the real world. they exist only in the alcoholic's head. but, by believing that these things are REAL THINGS, (s)he can feel better about struggling with the problem.

so, this is not "jiancheng should feel stupid". rather, it's "jiancheng is fighting against one of the human race's most formidable enemies."

--

**there are some exceptions to this rule--people who DO tend to simplify things by nature. these people often become distinguished scientists, since "simplifying things down to their essence" is what science is basically all about.
on the other hand, sometimes they also make the mistake of trying to "simplify" things like love and happiness, in which case they sink into deep, lifelong depression.
i guess we can't win. |:

[JianchengD868]

It's easy for me to forget to use these basic but essential rules. I seem to enjoy complicating problems. What a stupid I was.

you're not alone here. in fact, this is no less than a fundamental problem of human psychology.

when people struggle with something that is (or can be) simple, you might think they would try to ... well, simplify the issue.
unfortunately, this isn't what happens.**

instead, the universal human reaction is to formulate artificial complexity, to justify the apparent challenge of the issue.
in other words, if we were to admit that we struggled with / failed at something that's simple, it would be a massive blow to the ego. so, to preserve the ego, our brains basically pretend that simple things are actually complicated.

best example ever: alcoholism.
alcoholism is, in reality, one of the simplest problems imaginable. ("alcohol? NO." ...and that's pretty much the whole thing, ladies and gentlemen.)
but, when someone becomes an alcoholic, (s)he invents all sorts of complex rationalizations-- "This social situation...", "Pressure from ...", etc.-- that don't really exist in the real world. they exist only in the alcoholic's head. but, by believing that these things are REAL THINGS, (s)he can feel better about struggling with the problem.

so, this is not "jiancheng should feel stupid". rather, it's "jiancheng is fighting against one of the human race's most formidable enemies."

--

**there are some exceptions to this rule--people who DO tend to simplify things by nature. these people often become distinguished scientists, since "simplifying things down to their essence" is what science is basically all about.
on the other hand, sometimes they also make the mistake of trying to "simplify" things like love and happiness, in which case they sink into deep, lifelong depression.
i guess we can't win. |:

Dear Ron,

I absolutely agree with you. The reason I unconsciously complex those questions is that I don't trust these simple and common principles. Only complex, exhausting and abstruse things can comfort me. Maybe I cannot believe that SC questions in GMAT are so easy that only those simple and common principles can tackle them.

if we were to admit that we struggled with / failed at something that's simple, it would be a massive blow to the ego. so, to preserve the ego, our brains basically pretend that simple things are actually complicated.

I think this is the right reason that I don't believe in the simple rules. It is not the simple rules are useless, but I don't master them.

Thank you so much. I truly appreciate your help. You are not only a great instructor, but also an empathetic listener and a psychologist consultant.

Kind regards,
Jiancheng

[RonPurewal]

you're welcome.

[NL]

Uhum…
Simplicity and easiness are not siblings, although they are synonyms in some dictionaries (my personal opinion)

Making a problem complicated may be a right step toward simplifying the problem. (not sure if I’m dealing with a cognitive-dissonance problem )

[RonPurewal]

i don't think i understand.

there's a proverb that says, "you have to break some eggs if you want to make an omelette"... are you trying to say the same thing?

[NL]

Master,
If you don’t understand me, who will?

Interesting proverb! I think it has a part, not the entire, overlapping with what I meant.

You don’t understand because you may not experience life in the same way I did. Going from complexity to simplicity is a way of students (at least me)

E.g. 1: In the GMAT
A student tries some methods, getting 50% of questions correct. S/he is not satisfied, so tries some other methods (or ways of thinking). This new experiment gives him/her only 30% of similar questions correct. Frustrated, s/he tries more things. 20% correct! What a hell? Sit. Watch. Aha, I got you! Jump to 60%. A life’s cycle repeats if s/he is not satisfied and wants to go for 70%.
(a good student may have a more straight way-I guest)

E.g. 2: In life
Going against something generally accepted as good until getting some bullets. Then accepted. (the only benefit is understanding the reasons.)

A master often has an opposite way: making things complicated (hihi). From one simple math rule, he can create thousands of weird questions. And his students’ job is to practice, practice, and practice to find a way through hundreds of those questions to arrive to the rule.

[RonPurewal]

if you're at the top of a small mountain and you want to reach the top of a bigger mountain, your first few steps are ... downward.

in other words, there's always going to be some awkwardness whenever you change old habits, and you can usually expect to perform worse-- even with objectively better habits-- during a certain period of adjustment.

[RonPurewal]

incidentally, the above is also the reason why perfectionists typically don't achieve much in life.
(perfectionists can't stand to take ANY steps downward, so they stay stuck on top of the small mountain while everyone else is starting to climb the bigger ones.)

[harika.apu]

"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. "

Ron: Can you plz explain above paragraph for me with an example?? I can NOT understand this rule applied in this question.

if you're going to say COMMA + "twice as many as...", then that's incorrect unless there's actually a quantity in front of the comma.
e.g.
last year i read 40 books, twice as many as i read in the preceding year
--> correct
last year the number of books i read increased dramatically, twice as many as i read in the preceding year
--> incorrect

Hello Ron ,
For comma + "twice as many as..." construction , do we need a quantity right before comma ?
for the second construction , is "number of books" not a quantity ?

Thanks