The number of people flying first

[VVV]

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

[VVV]

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

a. doubling the increase of
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

i am confuse between choice a & d

in case of "d" twice is modifying verb of the first sentence.

in option "a" can modifier "doubling the increase of " place at the end that is modifying the number

[vvv]

Help needed from MGMAT staff

[RonPurewal]

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.

[MBA Action]

Do we have a split here between "increase in" and "increase of"? or is it a red herring?

Also if B were "Doubling that of", will it be correct?

Thanks,

[RonPurewal]

Do we have a split here between "increase in" and "increase of"? or is it a red herring?

genuine split. not red herring.

"the increase in X" means that X itself has increased. therefore, "the increase in the previous year" doesn't make sense, because the implication would be that the previous year itself had increased (what would that possibly mean?).

"the increase of TIME PERIOD", by contrast, means exactly what it should mean in this particular instance.

Also if B were "Doubling that of", will it be correct?

no.
if you did that, then there's no noun for which "that" can stand. you're trying to make "that" stand for "increase", but, unfortunately, "increase" isn't there.

[herogmat]

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.

Sorry for bumping into the old thread here. I didn't quite get the idea of appositive modifier. 'Twice' is actually an adverb. Doesn't 'twice - followed by a comma' work as a adverbial modifier and therefore will modify the entire clause preceeding the comma?

" Doubling the increase ..." in choice a is sounding like previous year is getting increased by itself. Can someone please clarify ?

[RonPurewal]

Sorry for bumping into the old thread here. I didn't quite get the idea of appositive modifier. 'Twice' is actually an adverb. Doesn't 'twice - followed by a comma' work as a adverbial modifier and therefore will modify the entire clause preceeding the comma?

if you want, you can just memorize this an idiom, but "twice Y" / "X times Y" can definitely be used as an appositive.

" Doubling the increase ..." in choice a is sounding like previous year is getting increased by itself. Can someone please clarify ?

nope. ironically, this is the adverbial modifier.
COMMA + -ING is ALWAYS an adverbial modifier, and ALWAYS modifies the entirety of the preceding clause (whether you want it to or not!)
in this case, that's precisely what we want to do, so this is the winner.

--

by the way, you can strike (d) and (e) without even seeing the prompt.
as soon as you see "twice as many as the increase...", these choices are automatically incorrect (since "increase" is not a countable quantity).

[xiao85yu]

by the way, you can strike (d) and (e) without even seeing the prompt.
as soon as you see "twice as many as the increase...", these choices are automatically incorrect (since "increase" is not a countable quantity).

Ron, are you using the keyword "many" here to determine that the object should be countable? Is "Twice as much as" unidiomatic?

Also, is there a generic rule regarding the uses of twice/double?

[victorgsiu]

In B, what does "that of" refer to?

Given "that" usually refers to a noun or noun phrase, would "that of" refer to 'the number'?

[RonPurewal]

In B, what does "that of" refer to?

Given "that" usually refers to a noun or noun phrase, would "that of" refer to 'the number'?

it doesn't refer to anything. that's one of the wrong answers!

in fact, you have probably happened upon the most salient reason why that choice is wrong.

[RonPurewal]

by the way, you can strike (d) and (e) without even seeing the prompt.
as soon as you see "twice as many as the increase...", these choices are automatically incorrect (since "increase" is not a countable quantity).

Ron, are you using the keyword "many" here to determine that the object should be countable? Is "Twice as much as" unidiomatic?

here's the basic idea:

if you say "twice as many", then this construction should be paired with a countable noun.
e.g., twice as many dogs --> "dogs" is a countable noun

if you said "twice as much", then this construction should be paired with an uncountable noun.
e.g., twice as much water --> "water" is an uncountable noun

if the noun in question is already an explicitly numerical quantity, then you should use neither "much" nor "many". instead, you should just use "twice" or "double" by itself.
e.g., twice the increase --> "increase" is an explicitly numerical quantity

these rules are followed pretty closely.
so, for instance:
twice as much water --> correct, since "water" is an uncountable noun (but is not an explicitly numerical quantity)
twice the water... --> incorrect, since water is not a numerical quantity

twice as much as the increase... --> incorrect; redundant
twice the increase... --> correct

Also, is there a generic rule regarding the uses of twice/double?

i don't know of one, other than restrictions on parts of speech, of which you are almost certainly already aware (e.g., "double" can be a verb, while "twice" clearly can't)

[rajinikanth]

Hi Ron,
you mentioned , 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, can you give an example so that its easy to see the difference between
twice as many as, and twice as many X as (as in the following)

related Q from OG so that people can see Ron's points. about twice as many + countable.

O.G 12 Q 125

Today, because of improvements in agricultural technology, the same amount of acreage produces twice as many apples as it did in 1910.

Thanks,
Raj

[gurvindersingh2004]

Sorry for bumping into the old thread here. I didn't quite get the idea of appositive modifier. 'Twice' is actually an adverb. Doesn't 'twice - followed by a comma' work as a adverbial modifier and therefore will modify the entire clause preceeding the comma?

if you want, you can just memorize this an idiom, but "twice Y" / "X times Y" can definitely be used as an appositive.

" Doubling the increase ..." in choice a is sounding like previous year is getting increased by itself. Can someone please clarify ?

nope. ironically, this is the adverbial modifier.
COMMA + -ING is ALWAYS an adverbial modifier, and ALWAYS modifies the entirety of the preceding clause (whether you want it to or not!)
in this case, that's precisely what we want to do, so this is the winner.

--

by the way, you can strike (d) and (e) without even seeing the prompt.
as soon as you see "twice as many as the increase...", these choices are automatically incorrect (since "increase" is not a countable quantity).

Does an adverbial modifier the whole clause preceding it?

[mahesh.s009]

Hi Ron,


"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. "

Not sure if you really meant to say that appositive will need to modify the noun coming immediately before the comma or did I get something wrong.

Your previous example :Tony ran down the street, his arms flailing as he tried to flag down the bus

Here appositive his arms.... modifies Tony and not street.