Welcome! Check out our free B-School Guides to learn how you compare with other applicants.

## A Grockit Q (comparison, modifiers ...): doubt about the OA

tagged by: thulsy

This topic has 9 expert replies and 17 member replies
Goto page
• 1,
• 2
thulsy Rising GMAT Star
Joined
02 Feb 2012
Posted:
42 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
6 times
Test Date:
July 2012
GMAT Score:
760
A Grockit Q (comparison, modifiers ...): doubt about the OA Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:30 pm
Elapsed Time: 00:00
• Lap #[LAPCOUNT] ([LAPTIME])
Last year Torville Toys sold 34,000 Quizmo Dolls, accounting for almost half of their total revenue, twice as much as 2005.

A.twice as much as 2005
B.twice as many as 2005
C.double what it was in 2005
D.double the figure for 2005
E.twice the number that was tallied in 2005

Please explain your selections. I have some doubt about the OA, and I will post the OA after some replies. Thanks.

Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!
sam2304 GMAT Titan
Joined
26 Apr 2011
Posted:
1239 messages
Followed by:
24 members
Thanked:
228 times
Test Date:
26/06/2012
Target GMAT Score:
720
GMAT Score:
680
Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:52 pm
A - as much as usage is wrong here. We are having countable nouns and many should be used
B - wrong comparison, we are comparing 34000 dolls with 2005
C - awkward, something is missing
E - too wordy though it seems fine.

IMO D.

_________________
Getting defeated is just a temporary notion, giving it up is what makes it permanent.
http://gmatandbeyond.blogspot.in/

patanjali.purpose GMAT Destroyer!
Joined
03 Apr 2011
Posted:
784 messages
Followed by:
10 members
Thanked:
112 times
Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:19 pm
thulsy wrote:
Last year Torville Toys sold 34,000 Quizmo Dolls, accounting for almost half of their total revenue, twice as much as 2005.

A.twice as much as 2005
B.twice as many as 2005
C.double what it was in 2005
D.double the figure for 2005
E.twice the number that was tallied in 2005

Please explain your selections. I have some doubt about the OA, and I will post the OA after some replies. Thanks.
D - IMO "figure" could refer to either 34000 dolls or revenue"
C - IT does not have any referent than REVENUE

IMO C

GMAT Kolaveri Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
Joined
23 Mar 2012
Posted:
286 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
59 times
Target GMAT Score:
730
Sat Apr 14, 2012 1:43 am
thulsy wrote:
Last year Torville Toys sold 34,000 Quizmo Dolls, accounting for almost half of their total revenue, twice as much as 2005.

A.twice as much as 2005
B.twice as many as 2005
C.double what it was in 2005
D.double the figure for 2005
E.twice the number that was tallied in 2005
Dolls are countable.
A- much is incorrect
B- as many as year[2005] is incorrect
C- it's antecedent is not clear.
D- Correct
E- wordy

_________________
Regards and Thanks,
Vinoth@GMAT Kolaveri
http://gmatkolaveri.tumblr.com/

Click the thank you button if you like my reply

Thanked by: gmatblood
Neo Anderson Rising GMAT Star
Joined
06 Oct 2011
Posted:
92 messages
Thanked:
18 times
Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:58 am
+1 for C
patanjali.purpose wrote:
thulsy wrote:
Last year Torville Toys sold 34,000 Quizmo Dolls, accounting for almost half of their total revenue, twice as much as 2005.

A.twice as much as 2005
B.twice as many as 2005
C.double what it was in 2005
D.double the figure for 2005
E.twice the number that was tallied in 2005

Please explain your selections. I have some doubt about the OA, and I will post the OA after some replies. Thanks.
D - IMO "figure" could refer to either 34000 dolls or revenue"
C - IT does not have any referent than REVENUE

IMO C

thulsy Rising GMAT Star
Joined
02 Feb 2012
Posted:
42 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
6 times
Test Date:
July 2012
GMAT Score:
760
Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:11 pm
Thanks all for your reply. The OA is D, and here comes the official explanation:

If a quantity is countable, then the term "as many" should be used. "As much" is used when a quantity, such as an emotion or an attribute, cannot be counted. Since the Quizmo Dolls can be counted, "as many" is the proper term in this case.

Also, "as much as 2005" is improper. It should be "as many as in 2005" or "double the figure for 2005."

Last year Torville Toys sold 34,000 Quizmo Dolls, accounting for almost half of their total revenue, twice as much as 2005.

A. twice as much as 2005Choice A is not the correct answer. Since the number of dolls can be counted, the comparison should be "as many," rather than "as much." The prepositional phrase "as 2005" is also incorrect.

B.twice as many as 2005
Choice B is not the correct answer. "As many" is correct, but the prepositional phrase "as 2005" creates an illogical comparison.

C.double what it was in 2005
Choice C is not the correct answer. This sentence is wordy and awkward

D.double the figure for 2005
Choice D is the correct answer. The emphasis is placed on the number of dolls and "for 2005" is the correct structure of the comparison.

E.twice the number that was tallied in 2005
Choice E is not the correct answer. This is too wordy and awkward.

----
My query:

I chose A because I was stuck with the original meaning of the sentence. There are two quantities:
1. 34000 Quizmo Dolls (this is countable)
2. half of their total revenue (the ratio - half - is uncountable)

From the original sentence (Choice A), I think the underlined part serves as an appositive noun modifier, which modifies the nearest quantity ("half"). Therefore, I construe the intended meaning as

Last year sold 34,000, accounting for almost 1/2 of their total revenue
in 2005, sold unknown #, accounting for almost 1/4 of their total revenue

Per my above understanding, "as much as" is justified, because the ratio "half" is uncountable.

For the OA-D, I doubt that "the figure" is ambiguous - it could refer to either 34,000 or "half". Also, if "double the figure for 2005" is a noun modifier modifying "34,000 Quizmo Dolls", I think it should be placed as close as possible to "34,000 Quizmo Dolls".

Can anyone shed light on this? Kindly correct me if I am wrong. Thanks.

thulsy wrote:
Last year Torville Toys sold 34,000 Quizmo Dolls, accounting for almost half of their total revenue, twice as much as 2005.

A.twice as much as 2005
B.twice as many as 2005
C.double what it was in 2005
D.double the figure for 2005
E.twice the number that was tallied in 2005

Please explain your selections. I have some doubt about the OA, and I will post the OA after some replies. Thanks.

vikram4689 GMAT Titan
Joined
01 Nov 2009
Posted:
1324 messages
Followed by:
13 members
Thanked:
99 times
Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:29 pm
accounting for almost half of their total revenue is a non-essential modifier and hence sentence would make EXACTLY same sense when this modifier is removed. After removing it, we can see that twice/double was intended for dolls and not revenue

Hope it is clear now

_________________
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button

thulsy Rising GMAT Star
Joined
02 Feb 2012
Posted:
42 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
6 times
Test Date:
July 2012
GMAT Score:
760
Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:19 am
Hi vikram4689,
Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry but I still have the following considerations:

1. I think the part "accounting for almost half of their total revenue" is in the form of "comma + v-ing", which serves as an adverbial modifier that modifies the whole preceding clause, right? If so, I feel weird to have in Choice D:
Main clause, (adverbial modifier), (noun modifier for the noun in the Main Clause).
Here we have an adverbial modifier inserted in the middle to destroy the intactness of the sentence.

2. If the intended meaning was as I thought (in 2005 that ratio was almost 1/4), wouldn't we write the sentence exactly as Choice A?

Thanks all the same. Open to discussion

vikram4689 wrote:
accounting for almost half of their total revenue is a non-essential modifier and hence sentence would make EXACTLY same sense when this modifier is removed. After removing it, we can see that twice/double was intended for dolls and not revenue

Hope it is clear now

vikram4689 GMAT Titan
Joined
01 Nov 2009
Posted:
1324 messages
Followed by:
13 members
Thanked:
99 times
Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:30 am
Yes construction is awkward but there is no other way. "accounting..." has to come there only to show that sale of dolls accounted for ...

Now for the meaning you intended, one will use relative modifier and not comma after revenue. using a relative modifier would indicate that noun "revenue" was to be modified

_________________
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button

Thanked by: thulsy

### GMAT/MBA Expert

lunarpower GMAT Instructor
Joined
03 Mar 2008
Posted:
2975 messages
Followed by:
1048 members
Thanked:
1729 times
GMAT Score:
800
Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:46 am

this problem is a direct rip-off of OG 11th edition problem #4 [note: edited]. i'm not allowed to reproduce OG problems here, but, if you can get your hands on OG11, you shouldn't waste your time with this problem -- there's no value added here if you have the original.

thulsy wrote:
From the original sentence (Choice A), I think the underlined part serves as an appositive noun modifier, which modifies the nearest quantity ("half"). Therefore, I construe the intended meaning as

Last year sold 34,000, accounting for almost 1/2 of their total revenue
in 2005, sold unknown #, accounting for almost 1/4 of their total revenue

Per my above understanding, "as much as" is justified, because the ratio "half" is uncountable.

For the OA-D, I doubt that "the figure" is ambiguous - it could refer to either 34,000 or "half". Also, if "double the figure for 2005" is a noun modifier modifying "34,000 Quizmo Dolls", I think it should be placed as close as possible to "34,000 Quizmo Dolls".
usually, these kinds of modifiers modify the thing to which they are directly attached.

_________________
Ron is a Director of Curriculum Development at Manhattan GMAT. He has been teaching various standardized tests for almost 20 years.

He wears white after Labor Day, gets 55% of his calories from protein, and takes standardized tests for fun.

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron o en inglés o en español.

If you send Ron a private message, please allow 1-2 weeks for a response.

Last edited by lunarpower on Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:34 am; edited 1 time in total

Thanked by: thulsy
Free Manhattan GMAT online events - The first class of every online Manhattan GMAT course is free. Classes start every week.

### GMAT/MBA Expert

lunarpower GMAT Instructor
Joined
03 Mar 2008
Posted:
2975 messages
Followed by:
1048 members
Thanked:
1729 times
GMAT Score:
800
Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:50 am
vikram4689 wrote:
accounting for almost half of their total revenue is a non-essential modifier and hence sentence would make EXACTLY same sense when this modifier is removed. After removing it, we can see that twice/double was intended for dolls and not revenue

Hope it is clear now
this is wrong, because it's possible for a modifier to modify another modifier.

for instance:
I ate lunch with Janice, who brought along Butch, her toy poodle.

this is a correct sentence. "who brought along Butch" is modifying Janice, and, in turn, the appositive ("her toy poodle") is modifying Butch. you can't remove just the part between the two commas, because the appositive is modifying that part -- if you kill that part, you have to kill the appositive too.

_________________
Ron is a Director of Curriculum Development at Manhattan GMAT. He has been teaching various standardized tests for almost 20 years.

He wears white after Labor Day, gets 55% of his calories from protein, and takes standardized tests for fun.

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron o en inglés o en español.

If you send Ron a private message, please allow 1-2 weeks for a response.

Thanked by: thulsy
Free Manhattan GMAT online events - The first class of every online Manhattan GMAT course is free. Classes start every week.
thulsy Rising GMAT Star
Joined
02 Feb 2012
Posted:
42 messages
Followed by:
6 members
Thanked:
6 times
Test Date:
July 2012
GMAT Score:
760
Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:43 am
lunarpower wrote:
this problem is a direct rip-off of OG 11th edition problem #7. i'm not allowed to reproduce OG problems here, but, if you can get your hands on OG11, you shouldn't waste your time with this problem -- there's no value added here if you have the original.
Excuse me but I have found the OG11 problem #7 to be the following:

Carnivorous mammals can endure what would otherwise be lethal levels of body heat because they have a heat-exchange network which kept the brain from getting too hot.

I suspect that you were referring to a different problem...

vikram4689 GMAT Titan
Joined
01 Nov 2009
Posted:
1324 messages
Followed by:
13 members
Thanked:
99 times
Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:14 pm
lunarpower wrote:
vikram4689 wrote:
accounting for almost half of their total revenue is a non-essential modifier and hence sentence would make EXACTLY same sense when this modifier is removed. After removing it, we can see that twice/double was intended for dolls and not revenue

Hope it is clear now
this is wrong, because it's possible for a modifier to modify another modifier.

for instance:
I ate lunch with Janice, who brought along Butch, her toy poodle.

this is a correct sentence. "who brought along Butch" is modifying Janice, and, in turn, the appositive ("her toy poodle") is modifying Butch. you can't remove just the part between the two commas, because the appositive is modifying that part -- if you kill that part, you have to kill the appositive too.
Sure, i agree that in I ate lunch with Janice, who brought along Butch, her toy poodle if we remove part between commas then we have to remove appositive as well. This is because if we only remove part between commas sentence DOES NOT makes sense, telling us that last part was intended to modify Butch

In original sentence, from the meaning, we can infer part between commas is just giving additional information. Moreover if we remove part between commas sentence still makes sense.

_________________
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button

### GMAT/MBA Expert

lunarpower GMAT Instructor
Joined
03 Mar 2008
Posted:
2975 messages
Followed by:
1048 members
Thanked:
1729 times
GMAT Score:
800
Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:34 am
thulsy wrote:
lunarpower wrote:
this problem is a direct rip-off of OG 11th edition problem #7. i'm not allowed to reproduce OG problems here, but, if you can get your hands on OG11, you shouldn't waste your time with this problem -- there's no value added here if you have the original.
Excuse me but I have found the OG11 problem #7 to be the following:

Carnivorous mammals can endure what would otherwise be lethal levels of body heat because they have a heat-exchange network which kept the brain from getting too hot.

I suspect that you were referring to a different problem...
sorry, #4. i have no idea why i wrote #7.

the first few words of the correct problem are "A survey by the National Council of Churches..."

i will also go back and edit my post. thanks.

_________________
Ron is a Director of Curriculum Development at Manhattan GMAT. He has been teaching various standardized tests for almost 20 years.

He wears white after Labor Day, gets 55% of his calories from protein, and takes standardized tests for fun.

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron o en inglés o en español.

If you send Ron a private message, please allow 1-2 weeks for a response.

Thanked by: thulsy
Free Manhattan GMAT online events - The first class of every online Manhattan GMAT course is free. Classes start every week.

### GMAT/MBA Expert

lunarpower GMAT Instructor
Joined
03 Mar 2008
Posted:
2975 messages
Followed by:
1048 members
Thanked:
1729 times
GMAT Score:
800
Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:39 am
vikram4689 wrote:
In original sentence, from the meaning, we can infer part between commas is just giving additional information. Moreover if we remove part between commas sentence still makes sense.
if that's the intention, then the sentence isn't arranged in a way that makes sense.
the -ing modifier is going to modify the preceding clause regardless, so, if the sentence means what you're saying it means, then the "double the figure..." should be placed directly after what it modifies.
as in
...34,000 dolls, double the figure for xxx, accounting for half of the company's revenue

because the sentence is written the way it's written, the most likely interpretation is the opposite of yours -- i.e., that the sentence works the same way as the "butch" example.

this is the more general rule for nonessential modifiers: they should, if at all possible, be slapped directly onto the thing that they are modifying.
in a sentence with potential ambiguity -- like this one -- they must be placed directly onto the thing they modify, lest the sentence be misinterpreted.

_________________
Ron is a Director of Curriculum Development at Manhattan GMAT. He has been teaching various standardized tests for almost 20 years.

He wears white after Labor Day, gets 55% of his calories from protein, and takes standardized tests for fun.

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron o en inglés o en español.

If you send Ron a private message, please allow 1-2 weeks for a response.

Thanked by: thulsy, theclimb
Free Manhattan GMAT online events - The first class of every online Manhattan GMAT course is free. Classes start every week.

### Best Conversation Starters

1 varun289 43 topics
2 greenwich 30 topics
3 sana.noor 22 topics
4 guerrero 20 topics
5 killerdrummer 18 topics
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

### Most Active Experts

1 Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

205 posts
2 Anju@Gurome

Gurome

146 posts
3 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

145 posts
4 Jim@StratusPrep

Stratus Prep

96 posts
5 David@VeritasPrep

Veritas Prep

39 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts