Today, despite widely available technology

[bshields1983]

Today, despite widely available technology such as high-resolution scanners and printers, counterfeiting is more difficult than it was at the time of the Civil War, when it was estimated that one-third of all currency in circulation was counterfeit.

A) Today, despite widely available technology such as high-resolution scanners and printers, counterfeiting is more difficult than it was at the time of the Civil War, when it was estimated that one-third of all currency in circulation was counterfeit.

B) Despite widely available technology such as high-resolution scanners and printers today, counterfeiting is more difficult than it was at the time of the Civil War, when it was estimated that one-third of all currency in circulation was counterfeit.

C) Despite widely available technology such as high-resolution scanners and printers, counterfeiting is more difficult than at the time of the Civil War, when it was estimated that one-third of all currency in circulation was counterfeit.

D) Today, despite widely available technology such as high-resolution scanners and printers, counterfeiting is more difficult than when it was estimated that one-third of all currency in circulation was counterfeit at the time of the Civil War.

E) Today, because of widely available technology such as high-resolution scanners and printers, counterfeiting is more difficult than it was at the time of the Civil War, when it was estimated that one-third of all currency in circulation was counterfeit.


QUESTION: Can someone explain why "Today, despite widely available technology such as..." is not an incorrect modifier? I thought that if you had a modifying clause after a comma (in this case, "despite widely..."), that modifier modifies the word right before the comma. I therefore took this to be an incorrect modification of "Today", but the correct answer indicates the structure is fine.

Help please!

[jnelson0612]

That is true in the case of a noun followed by a modifying clause; however, in this sentence the word "today" is actually serving as an adjective.

[toshashankpandey]

Narrowed down to A and E.

Why is E wrong ?
I thought that the sentence meant to say that ' because of so and so technology , the counterfeiting is more difficult now then it was before.

I am not able to get the meaning of the original sentence that uses DESPITE . Please advise.

[tim]

The distinction between "despite" and "because of" is exactly what makes all the difference here. Think about whether better printing and scanning technology should make counterfeiting harder or easier (the answer of course is easier). But in reality counterfeiting is harder. This is precisely the situation where you would use the word "despite"..

[cumulonimbus]

The distinction between "despite" and "because of" is exactly what makes all the difference here. Think about whether better printing and scanning technology should make counterfeiting harder or easier (the answer of course is easier). But in reality counterfeiting is harder. This is precisely the situation where you would use the word "despite"..

Hi Tim,

Can you please help me understand what (, + ing) counterfeiting is modifying here.

In this sentence before comma, there is no clause. So it seems to modify the previous noun - technology, and this doesn't make sense to me.

Please guide.

[RonPurewal]

Can you please help me understand what (, + ing) counterfeiting is modifying here.

"counterfeiting" is a noun here (like Swimming is fun). So it doesn't modify anything.

Even if that wasn't clear to you at first, it should be apparent once you notice that "counterfeiting" is followed immediately by "is"; that would be impossible if it were a modifier.

[SofronieD789]

Hi experts,

I have a little question about choice A.

Today, despite widely available technology such as high-resolution scanners and printers, counterfeiting is more difficult than it was at the time of the Civil War, when it was estimated that one-third of all currency in circulation was counterfeit.

In this choice, the first "it" stands for "counterfeiting", but the second "it" stands for "one-third of all currency in circulation was counterfeit".

How can that be true if same pronoun stands for different things in one sentence?

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

It is absolutely possible for multiple pronouns to have different antecedents in a sentence. It sounds like you've got the impression of a rule that, in reality, doesn't exist. Let's take an example: "Tom loves his toy train, and plays with it whenever he can, whereas Amit prefers his toy car, and plays with it whenever he can." This sentence is absolutely fine: it's clear enough what each pronoun refers to and we can understand the meaning. Be careful not to throw out your basic appreciation of English when you start to study GMAT problems.

One more thing, the second "it" in the sentence above doesn't refer to 'one third of all currency...'. The second "it" doesn't have an antecedent at all. Sometimes we use this with phrases such as 'It's raining today.' or 'It is a truth universally acknowledged...' I believe that there's an explanation of this kind of pronoun in one of the chapters of All the Verbal Companion.

[SofronieD789]

Got it, thanks.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Good to hear that.