Sentence Correction

lunarpower wrote:

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.

Yeah, construction you stated is more clear but i don't know why most of posters of this question have interpreted last modifier in a way similar to mine. It may be because "twice" is an adverb and everyone thought last modifier to modify dolls sold. For same reason, I think in following grammatically correct sentence "dolls" are modified
Last year Torville Toys sold 34,000 Quizmo Dolls, accounting for almost half of their total revenue, twice as much as in 2005.


I found 2 more instances of such construction. Since, in both of the sentences both of the modifiers are adjectival, both modifier same noun and reversing order of modifiers will not change intended meaning
A survey by the National Council of Churches showed that in 1986 there were 20,736 female ministers, almost 9 percent of the nation's clergy, double the figure for 1977 .

According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were 198,113 female science and engineering graduate students, almost 42% of the graduate students in those fields, double the figure for 1981. .

These sentences are from Grockit(dolls), OG-11(churches), MGMAT(national science foundation).

in the official problem, the last modifier is best taken to modify the stuff directly next to it, for the same reasons i mentioned a couple of posts up

lets consider OG one:
A survey by the National Council of Churches showed that in 1986 there were 20,736 female ministers, almost 9 percent of the nation's clergy, double the figure for 1977

so you are saying that double the figure for 1977 modifies 9 percent of the nation's clergy. Like in earlier case, in this case we don't have -ing modifier(adverbial modifier) instead both the modifier here as adjectival so how to infer double the figure for 1977 modifies 9 percent of the nation's clergy OR 20,736 female ministers

Ron, thank you for your nice explanation. Below is what I get - hopefully I understand your point, please kindly correct me if I am wrong.
(I understand you are not "free" to discuss the OG problem in detail, otherwise GMAC will not tolerate. So hereby I do my own work and your comments are greatly appreciated.)

OG11 #4
A survey by the National Council of Churches showed that in 1986 there were 20,736 female ministers, almost 9 percent of the nation's clergy, double the figure for 1977.

Here we have
Main clause, appositive noun modifier ("almost 9 percent of the nation's clergy"), another noun modifier ("double ...")

(1)appositive noun modifier conveys the idea of "equivalent"
20,736 female ministers = almost 9 percent of the nation's clergy
(2)As Ron explained above, the "double ..." modifier, in general, modifies the stuff next to it.
almost 9 percent of the nation's clergy ~ double the figure for 1977

Now, combine (1) and (2)
20,736 female ministers = almost 9 percent of the nation's clergy ~ double the figure for 1977

Notice that 20,736 is a "figure" and "9 percent" CANNOT be said a "figure". Therefore, the meaning is essentially
20,736 female ministers ~ double the figure for 1977
As per OG explanation: Double the figure for 1977 places the focus on the number and correctly completes the comparison.
In other words, there is no ambiguity in the official sentence.

--
By contrast, in the Grockit question, we have
Main clause, v-ing adverbial modifier ("accounting for half of the company's revenue"), another noun modifier ("double ...")

This sentence is incorrect because, as per Ron's explanation, the modifiers are misplaced. It should be:
...34,000 dolls, double the figure for xxx, accounting for half of the company's revenue

The key distinction between this sentence and the OG11 sentence is:
Here we have v-ing adverbial modifier, not an appositive noun modifier. Since adverbial modifier describes the whole clause, we cannot literally equate the two nouns as we have done for the OG question (20,736 female ministers = almost 9 percent of the nation's clergy)

My conclusion: This Grockit question is badly written and we should focus on OG.

--
A similar MGMAT CAT problem
https://gmatclub.com/forum/according-to- ... 51309.html

Correct sentence:
According to the National Science Foundation, in 2003 there were 198,113 female science and engineering graduate students, almost 42% of the graduate students in those fields, double the figure for 1981.

I think this question does a good job in imitating the OG question.

--
Another personal take-home

In my initial attempt to this question, I killed C and D at first glance because I wrongly considered "double" as a verb, thinking that there is a run-on. Now I learn that "double" can be used this way - as a noun modifier (adjective), and it should modify the stuff next to it.

Contrast: sentences in which "double" is a verb

The number of people flying first class on domestic flights rose sharply in 1990, doubling the increase of the previous year.
https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/the ... t5600.html

Here the v-ing modifier should apply to the subject of the preceding clause:
The number of people ... doubled the increase (in the number of people ...) of the previous year.
Analogy:
The baby doubled his weight.
I doubled my work efficiency.

We can see the modifier should be adverbial because:
1. the intended meaning is on the growth (the whole idea of the preceding clause)
2. there is no explicit number or figure in the preceding clause

By contrast, in the question of this discussion (OG11 #4), "double ..." is a noun modifier because:
1. the intended meaning is to compare a noun with another noun
2. there is an explicit figure ("20,736 female ministers")

lunarpower wrote:in the official problem, the last modifier is best taken to modify the stuff directly next to it, for the same reasons i mentioned a couple of posts up.

Thank you sooo much, Ron! Now I'm clear, finally
You are the all-mighty!

Particularly thanks for your advice. Well, I notice MGMAT has analysis on the shift from OG11 to OG12
https://www.manhattangmat.com/og12-sentence-corr.cfm
showing that comparison was significantly de-emphasized whereas modifier was significantly emphasized, consistent with your comments here about the removal of this question, which had been designed to test on comparison but turned out, unfortunately, to have modifier ambiguity issue.

lunarpower wrote:

Particularly thanks for your advice. Well, I notice MGMAT has analysis on the shift from OG11 to OG12
https://www.manhattangmat.com/og12-sentence-corr.cfm
showing that comparison was significantly de-emphasized whereas modifier was significantly emphasized, consistent with your comments here about the removal of this question, which had been designed to test on comparison but turned out, unfortunately, to have modifier ambiguity issue.

they didn't remove the question to de-emphasize comparisons; they took it out because it just isn't as well-written as most of the others (as discussed ad infinitum on this thread).
the comparison part is just fine, and is in fact a valuable exercise; it was just destroyed as collateral damage when the question was taken out of the book.

Oh I get it. So I mistook the statistical coincidence (this question just happened to be comparison-focused) for logical causality ^0^
Yeah, I've learnt a lot from it - thanks to you, Ron. You really rock!!!
Also thanks you guys for your participation.

I just find a similar problem analyzed by Stacey:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2011/03/ ... sc-problem

The correct sentence is:
More than 300 rivers drain into Siberia's Lake Baikal, which holds 20 percent of the world's fresh water, more than all the North American Great Lakes combined.

"more than ..." modifies the statistic directly next to it.
In this question, the structure "double the figure ..." has similar usage.

IMO (D)