A decade after initiating the nation's most comprehensive and aggressive antismoking program, per capita consumption of cigarettes in California declined from over 125 packs annually per person to about 60, a drop more than twice as great as in the nation as a whole.
(A) per capita consumption of cigarettes in California declined from over 125 packs annually per person to about 60, a drop more than twice as great as
(B) annual per capita consumption of cigarettes in California declined from over 125 packs to about 60, more than twice as great as that
(C) California's annual per capita consumption of cigarettes declined from over 125 packs per person to about 60, more than twice as great as the drop
(D) California has seen per capita consumption of cigarettes decline from over 125 packs annually to about 60, a drop more than twice as great as that
(E) California has seen annual per capita consumption of cigarettes decline from over 125 packs per person to about 60, more than twice as great as that
[spoiler]OA: Don't you guys feel that in option D both drop and decline are redundant words????[/spoiler]
(A) per capita consumption of cigarettes in California declined from over 125 packs annually per person to about 60, a drop more than twice as great as
(B) annual per capita consumption of cigarettes in California declined from over 125 packs to about 60, more than twice as great as that
(C) California's annual per capita consumption of cigarettes declined from over 125 packs per person to about 60, more than twice as great as the drop
(D) California has seen per capita consumption of cigarettes decline from over 125 packs annually to about 60, a drop more than twice as great as that
(E) California has seen annual per capita consumption of cigarettes decline from over 125 packs per person to about 60, more than twice as great as that
[spoiler]OA: Don't you guys feel that in option D both drop and decline are redundant words????[/spoiler]
