BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Soaring television costs

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Locked
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:44 pm
Thanked: 1 times

Soaring television costs

by suchoudh » Sat Nov 06, 2010 8:10 pm
Soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending in the presidential campaign of 1992, a greater proportion than it was in any previous election.

A. a greater proportion than it was
B. a greater proportion than
C. a greater proportion than they have been
D. which is greater than was so
E. which is greater than it has been

Major confusion what is the correct answer among A, B, C and why?

OA: B
Source: GMATPrep.
Last edited by suchoudh on Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
Source: — Sentence Correction |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:28 am
Thanked: 135 times
Followed by:7 members

by selango » Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:35 pm
Please check the below post,

https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/gma ... t7187.html
--Anand--
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 434
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:42 pm
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 91 times
Followed by:46 members

by EducationAisle » Sat Nov 06, 2010 10:38 pm
Firstly, you did a good job to boil it down to A, B and C. From this perspective, it is important to note that:

1. D and E use which, which cannot in any way modify Television costs, the intended referent.

2. A, B and C use Appositive modifiers, which are handy when the intent is to modify the entire clause.

For choices between A, B and C:

A-> it (singular) cannot refer to television costs (plural), the intended referent. was is also an issue, since was cannot elide for "accounted for". did would have been a better choice.

C-> they refers to Soaring television costs, while the intended referent is television costs. have been is also problematic, since have been accounted doesn't fit here.
Ashish
MBA - ISB, GMAT - 99th Percentile
GMAT Faculty @ EducationAisle
www.EducationAisle.com

Sentence Correction Nirvana available at:

a) Amazon: Sentence Correction Nirvana

b) Flipkart: Sentence Correction Nirvana

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:44 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by suchoudh » Sun Nov 07, 2010 4:07 am
EducationAisle wrote: A-> it (singular) cannot refer to television costs (plural), the intended referent. was is also an issue, since was cannot elide for "accounted for". did would have been a better choice.

I interpreted the referent of it as greater proportion, the subject of its own clause; in that case the subject and the verb agree and was can correctly replace proportion in any previous election was. Please let me know what is wrong with my interpretation.

Thanks for you response.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 434
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:42 pm
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 91 times
Followed by:46 members

by EducationAisle » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:12 am
Well, greater proportion for it would not make sense (try substituting: a greater proportion than greater proportion was in any previous election).

Lets step back a bit and phrase the ideal sentence (This always helps in ellipsis):

Soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending in the presidential campaign of 1992, a greater proportion than (proportion) in any previous election.

The above ideal construction is the reason why choice B is correct (proportion is elided).

Notice that a greater proportion than (proportion) in any previous election is not a clause, its a phrase (Appositives are phrases). However, it was in any previous election, in the original sentence is a clause and so, we were looking for its referents in the previous clause: Soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending in the presidential campaign of 1992. television costs was perhaps the intended referent, but it (singular) cannot refer to television costs (plural).

The following would perhaps have been better:

Soaring television costs accounted for more than half the spending in the presidential campaign of 1992; the proportion was greater than it was in any previous election.

Now, we can identify it referring back to proportion.
Ashish
MBA - ISB, GMAT - 99th Percentile
GMAT Faculty @ EducationAisle
www.EducationAisle.com

Sentence Correction Nirvana available at:

a) Amazon: Sentence Correction Nirvana

b) Flipkart: Sentence Correction Nirvana

Now! Preview the entire Grammar Section of Sentence Correction Nirvana at pothi
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:44 pm
Thanked: 1 times

by suchoudh » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:32 am
Thanks for the terrific explanation Ashish (EducationAisle)!
Top
Post new topic Locked
• Page 1 of 1