A decade after initiating the nation's most comprehensive

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members
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]
Source: — Sentence Correction |

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:22 am
Followed by:1 members

by gsinghal » Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:11 am
IMO D

In E, annual per capita consumption and packs per person are redundant.


Thanks
Gautam

Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

by aspirant2011 » Sat Jul 09, 2011 7:00 am
gsinghal wrote:IMO D

In E, annual per capita consumption and packs per person are redundant.


Thanks
Gautam
Wat I feel that annual per capita consumption means taking population as a whole whereas per person is not the same......please clarify on the same

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 68
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:22 am
Followed by:1 members

by gsinghal » Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:35 am
per capita means average per person... So in E using it twice is redundant.


Thanks
Gautam

Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

by aspirant2011 » Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:42 am
gsinghal wrote:per capita means average per person... So in E using it twice is redundant.


Thanks
Gautam
Then wat do u feel about option D, is decline and drop not redundant?????

Legendary Member
Posts: 1448
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 9:55 am
Location: India
Thanked: 375 times
Followed by:53 members

by Frankenstein » Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:00 am
aspirant2011 wrote:
gsinghal wrote:per capita means average per person... So in E using it twice is redundant.


Thanks
Gautam
Then wat do u feel about option D, is decline and drop not redundant?????
Hi,
Apart from using per person in E, the modifier ', more than twice as great as that ' refers to 60.
This means 60 is more than twice as great ...
But, we need to make sure that it refers to the drop/decline. So, we need to explicitly write 'a drop ...'.
Cheers!

Things are not what they appear to be... nor are they otherwise

Legendary Member
Posts: 1574
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 2:52 am
Thanked: 88 times
Followed by:13 members

by aspirant2011 » Sat Jul 09, 2011 9:06 am
Frankenstein wrote:
aspirant2011 wrote:
gsinghal wrote:per capita means average per person... So in E using it twice is redundant.


Thanks
Gautam
Then wat do u feel about option D, is decline and drop not redundant?????
Hi,
Apart from using per person in E, the modifier ', more than twice as great as that ' refers to 60.
This means 60 is more than twice as great ...
But, we need to make sure that it refers to the drop/decline. So, we need to explicitly write 'a drop ...'.
Thanks a lot frankenstein :-)

• Page 1 of 1