antismoking program

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 59
Joined: 10 Jun 2008
Thanked: 2 times

antismoking program

by cartera » Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:29 am
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.

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


OA is D however, as far as I know, annually is an adverb, how could it modify packs?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 258
Joined: 07 Aug 2008
Thanked: 16 times

Re: antismoking program

by x2suresh » Thu Feb 26, 2009 8:19 am
cartera wrote: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.

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


OA is D however, as far as I know, annually is an adverb, how could it modify packs?
annually is not modifying packs..

It is modifying .. seen (verb)

Here is another example:

UBS earned $200 million annually from the business
--> Clearly annullay is modifying "earned" not "million"

UBS earlned annually
UBS earned monthly
UBS earned daily

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 42
Joined: 19 Feb 2009
Thanked: 3 times
GMAT Score:720

by mygmat.2009 » Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:29 am
IMO

annually is modifying "decline" in this case because if we take out the "California has seen" part the sentence, the sentence would still make sense.


Cheers,
Sam

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 221
Joined: 21 Jan 2009
Thanked: 12 times
Followed by:1 members

by krisraam » Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:25 pm
A decade after initiating the nations most comprehensive and aggressive antismoking program should modify California

A, B,C are out.

E is eliminated as we are not sure what(drop) is more than twice as great as .
that

Thanks
Raama

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 258
Joined: 07 Aug 2008
Thanked: 16 times

by x2suresh » Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:29 pm
mygmat.2009 wrote:IMO

annually is modifying "decline" in this case because if we take out the "California has seen" part the sentence, the sentence would still make sense.


Cheers,
Sam
Agreed. Its my bad.

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 5
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Location: Gurgaon

by dtaneja2 » Thu Feb 26, 2009 9:20 pm
cartera wrote:
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.

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

A B & D is out because drop and decline are redundent
C is out because declined tells about past but declining is happening since from decade and it doesn't happened at once

E

Legendary Member
Posts: 727
Joined: 08 Jun 2008
Thanked: 8 times
Followed by:1 members

Re: antismoking program

by umaa » Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:20 pm
cartera wrote: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.

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


OA is D however, as far as I know, annually is an adverb, how could it modify packs?
A - Per capita, per person - Wrong
B - ANNUAL per capita - What does it mean? - Wrong
C - Same as A
D - Correct Answer
E - Same as A.