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

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 42
Joined: 02 Feb 2012
Thanked: 9 times
Followed by:6 members
GMAT Score:760

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

by thulsy » Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:30 pm
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.

Legendary Member
Posts: 1239
Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Thanked: 233 times
Followed by:26 members
GMAT Score:680
by sam2304 » Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:52 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.
https://gmatandbeyond.blogspot.in/

Legendary Member
Posts: 784
Joined: 03 Apr 2011
Thanked: 114 times
Followed by:12 members
by patanjali.purpose » Fri Apr 13, 2012 10:19 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

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 287
Joined: 23 Mar 2012
Location: Pune,India
Thanked: 60 times
Followed by:6 members
by GMAT Kolaveri » Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:43 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,
[email protected] Kolaveri
https://gmatkolaveri.tumblr.com/

Click the thank you button if you like my reply

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 92
Joined: 06 Oct 2011
Thanked: 18 times
by Neo Anderson » Sat Apr 14, 2012 2:58 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

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 42
Joined: 02 Feb 2012
Thanked: 9 times
Followed by:6 members
GMAT Score:760
by thulsy » Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:11 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.

Legendary Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Thanked: 105 times
Followed by:14 members
by vikram4689 » Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:29 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

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 42
Joined: 02 Feb 2012
Thanked: 9 times
Followed by:6 members
GMAT Score:760
by thulsy » Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:19 pm
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

Legendary Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Thanked: 105 times
Followed by:14 members
by vikram4689 » Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:30 pm
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

GMAT/MBA Expert

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1531 members
GMAT Score:800
by lunarpower » Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:46 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.
Last edited by lunarpower on Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions Ã  Ron en franÃ§ais
Voit esittÃ¤Ã¤ kysymyksiÃ¤ Ron:lle myÃ¶s suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vÃªtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vÃªtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

GMAT/MBA Expert

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1531 members
GMAT Score:800
by lunarpower » Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:50 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 has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions Ã  Ron en franÃ§ais
Voit esittÃ¤Ã¤ kysymyksiÃ¤ Ron:lle myÃ¶s suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vÃªtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vÃªtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 42
Joined: 02 Feb 2012
Thanked: 9 times
Followed by:6 members
GMAT Score:760
by thulsy » Thu Apr 19, 2012 9:43 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.
Hi Ron, Thank you for your reply. I see your point on the modifier part.
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...

Legendary Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Thanked: 105 times
Followed by:14 members
by vikram4689 » Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:14 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

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1531 members
GMAT Score:800
by lunarpower » Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:34 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.
Hi Ron, Thank you for your reply. I see your point on the modifier part.
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 has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions Ã  Ron en franÃ§ais
Voit esittÃ¤Ã¤ kysymyksiÃ¤ Ron:lle myÃ¶s suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vÃªtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vÃªtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

GMAT/MBA Expert

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: 03 Mar 2008
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1531 members
GMAT Score:800
by lunarpower » Fri Apr 20, 2012 5:39 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 has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions Ã  Ron en franÃ§ais
Voit esittÃ¤Ã¤ kysymyksiÃ¤ Ron:lle myÃ¶s suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vÃªtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vÃªtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--