Sentence Correction

In the 1980's the rate of increase of the minority population of the United States was nearly twice as fast as the 1970's.

(A) twice as fast as
(B) twice as fast as it was in
(C) twice what it was in
(D) two times faster than that of
(E) two times greater than

[spoiler]The dictionary says that TWICE is an ADVERB. Rate is a noun. OA is given as C. I want to go with E as it correctly shows the comparison. 1970's is an ellipsis construction.

Experts pls give your views. Most forums have pointed to C as the answer.[/spoiler]

In the 1980's the rate of increase of the minority population of the United States was nearly twice as fast as the 1970's.

(A) twice as fast as
(B) twice as fast as it was in
(C) twice what it was in
(D) two times faster than that of
(E) two times greater than

IMO: between B and C .. i chose C... as it is more concise...

zaarathelab wrote:In the 1980's the rate of increase of the minority population of the United States was nearly twice as fast as the 1970's.

(A) twice as fast as
(B) twice as fast as it was in
(C) twice what it was in
(D) two times faster than that of
(E) two times greater than

The dictionary says that TWICE is an ADVERB. Rate is a noun. OA is given as C. I want to go with E as it correctly shows the comparison. 1970's is an ellipsis construction.

Experts pls give your views. Most forums have pointed to C as the answer

If you want to use the ellipsis construction. Choice E will lack of preposition "in" as first clause. And as your reasoning, choice A also correct. In one sentence, do not have 2 correct answer. Choice C is correct one.

Definitively C. No question about it.

I do not think that there is any doubt here. The answer should be C.

I think that there is only one concept acting over here :

rate ... as fast as -- how can rate be "fast"....

The speed of the train is faster than the speed of...: is wrong, it should be
The train is moving faster than X


similarly, "rate" can be more or less, but cannot be fast or slow. The moving object can be fast or slow.

This is exactly what is happening here :

So we are left with only C --- this has to be the OA.


I hope this helps !!!

zaarathelab wrote:In the 1980's the rate of increase of the minority population of the United States was nearly twice as fast as the 1970's.

(A) twice as fast as
(B) twice as fast as it was in
(C) twice what it was in
(D) two times faster than that of
(E) two times greater than

[spoiler]The dictionary says that TWICE is an ADVERB. Rate is a noun. OA is given as C. I want to go with E as it correctly shows the comparison. 1970's is an ellipsis construction.

Experts pls give your views. Most forums have pointed to C as the answer.[/spoiler]

I received a PM asking me to comment.

A and E seem to compare THE RATE to THE 1970's. Eliminate A and E.

In D, two times FASTER implies multiplying by a FACTOR OF 3. To illustrate: if the rate is 1 unit per year, then two times the rate = 2 units per year, so two times FASTER = 3 units per year. The intended meaning is that the rate DOUBLED. Eliminate D.

In B, the rate was...twice as fast is considered an error of redundancy, akin to saying "the depth was twice as deep". Eliminate B.

The correct answer is C.

Zaarathelab expressed a concern about the use of twice in the OA. Please note that TWICE + NUMBER/AMOUNT is a very common construction, supported by dictionaries. Consider the examples of twice offered by Webster's:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/twice

nice platform to raise a perennial doubt of mine:

how can we conclude whether the sentence uses ellipsis... for e.g. in this case can I append [rate of increase] to option E? will doing so make it correct? if not, why and any more examples when we CANNOT use ellipsis..
the point is, if the sentence is using ellipsis then the comparison seems logical. doesn't it?

by the way is 'two times greater than' idiomatically correct?

lots of doubts..!

jumsumtak wrote:nice platform to raise a perennial doubt of mine:

how can we conclude whether the sentence uses ellipsis... for e.g. in this case can I append [rate of increase] to option E? will doing so make it correct? if not, why and any more examples when we CANNOT use ellipsis..
the point is, if the sentence is using ellipsis then the comparison seems logical. doesn't it?

by the way is 'two times greater than' idiomatically correct?

lots of doubts..!

Ellipsis is the omission of words whose presence is understood.
It must be CRYSTAL CLEAR what words are being omitted.
Generally, the omitted words should appear in the EXACT SAME FORM earlier in the sentence.
The use of ellipsis in E would imply the following:

THE RATE OF INCREASE OF THE MINORITY POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES was...greater than THE RATE OF INCREASE OF THE MINORITY POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES the 1970's.

The comparison above needs to say IN the 1970's, but we cannot borrow IN from the introductory modifier in the 1980's.

Two times greater than is unidiomatic and implies an increase of 300%, changing the intended meaning. For a further explanation, please see my post above regarding two times faster than.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

jumsumtak wrote:nice platform to raise a perennial doubt of mine:

how can we conclude whether the sentence uses ellipsis... for e.g. in this case can I append [rate of increase] to option E? will doing so make it correct? if not, why and any more examples when we CANNOT use ellipsis..
the point is, if the sentence is using ellipsis then the comparison seems logical. doesn't it?

by the way is 'two times greater than' idiomatically correct?

lots of doubts..!

Ellipsis is the omission of words whose presence is understood.
It must be CRYSTAL CLEAR what words are being omitted.
Generally, the omitted words should appear in the EXACT SAME FORM earlier in the sentence.
The use of ellipsis in E would imply the following:

THE RATE OF INCREASE OF THE MINORITY POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES was...greater than THE RATE OF INCREASE OF THE MINORITY POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES the 1970's.

The comparison above needs to say IN the 1970's, but we cannot borrow IN from the introductory modifier in the 1980's.

Two times greater than is unidiomatic and implies an increase of 300%, changing the intended meaning. For a further explanation, please see my post above regarding two times faster than.

Agree. We need to use the exact same form. But is it upto us from where we can clip the sentence and where we can paste it ?

for e.g. in this sentence :
In the 1980's the rate of increase of the minority population of the United States was nearly two times greater than the 1970's rate of increase of the minority population of the United States

I see this sentence is flawed as well because there is no "in" in the second part of the sentence. But, are we free to decide what to pick and where to paste.
Please explain this.

jumsumtak wrote:
for e.g. in this sentence :
In the 1980's the rate of increase of the minority population of the United States was nearly two times greater than the 1970's rate of increase of the minority population of the United States

It seems that you are interpreting "1970's" as a possessive in this sentence, since you have mentioned "..... 1970's rate of increase....". That is not the case here. By the way, if 1980's and 1970's were indeed used as a possessive, following would have been correct from ellipsis perspective (though logically, one might argue that there is still an issue):

The 1980's rate of increase of the minority population of the United States was nearly two times greater than the 1970's.

The above can be correctly interpreted as:

The 1980's rate of increase of the minority population of the United States was nearly two times greater than the 1970's (rate of increase of the minority population of the United States).

EducationAisle wrote:

jumsumtak wrote:
for e.g. in this sentence :
In the 1980's the rate of increase of the minority population of the United States was nearly two times greater than the 1970's rate of increase of the minority population of the United States

It seems that you are interpreting "1970's" as a possessive in this sentence, since you have mentioned "..... 1970's rate of increase....". That is not the case here. By the way, if 1980's and 1970's were indeed used as a possessive, following would have been correct from ellipsis perspective (though logically, one might argue that there is still an issue):

The 1980's rate of increase of the minority population of the United States was nearly two times greater than the 1970's.

The above can be correctly interpreted as:

The 1980's rate of increase of the minority population of the United States was nearly two times greater than the 1970's (rate of increase of the minority population of the United States).

I know the construction of the original sentence was incorrect.I got this one.

But should we not use 1970's for possessive and 1970s for plural form (for the years 1970,71,72...) ?

@ Mitch,

can you please provide an example where we cannot use the ellipsis because the use is not "crystal clear" ... I think that would solve my doubt.. thanks

jumsumtak wrote:
@ Mitch,

can you please provide an example where we cannot use the ellipsis because the use is not "crystal clear" ... I think that would solve my doubt.. thanks

An improper use of ellipsis:

Adam speaks to Bob more frequently than Carol.

The sentence above could imply either of the following:
Adam speaks to Bob more frequently than he SPEAKS TO CAROL.
Adam speaks to Bob more frequently than Carol SPEAKS TO BOB.

To make the comparison clear:

Adam speaks to Bob more frequently than TO Carol.
Adam speaks to Bob more frequently than Carol DOES.

jumsumtak wrote: But should we not use 1970's for possessive and 1970s for plural form (for the years 1970,71,72...) ?

That is a question of academic interest (in the sense that this knowledge is inconsequential to solve this question) because 1980's appears in the non-underlined portion of the sentence and we clearly cannot change this. It is quite clear that it is not used in possessive sense in the non-underlined portion. Hence, clearly 1970's has to be used in the same sense.

The reason this realization is crucial is because in SC, one must develop an eye for what matters and what does not, to solve a question. In this question, it is a moot point whether 1980's should have been used or 1980s.

jumsumtak wrote: can you please provide an example where we cannot use the ellipsis because the use is not "crystal clear" ... I think that would solve my doubt.. thanks

John likes his burger with cheese, Mary with butter.

The above sentence that uses ellipsis can be interpreted in either of the following ways:

1. John likes his burger with cheese; James likes Mary with butter. (non-sensical)
2. John likes his burger with cheese, Mary likes her burger with butter.

EducationAisle wrote:

jumsumtak wrote: But should we not use 1970's for possessive and 1970s for plural form (for the years 1970,71,72...) ?

That is a question of academic interest (in the sense that this knowledge is inconsequential to solve this question) because 1980's appears in the non-underlined portion of the sentence and we clearly cannot change this. It is quite clear that it is not used in possessive sense in the non-underlined portion. Hence, clearly 1970's has to be used in the same sense.

The reason this realization is crucial is because in SC, one must develop an eye for what matters and what does not, to solve a question. In this question, it is a moot point whether 1980's should have been used or 1980s.

jumsumtak wrote: can you please provide an example where we cannot use the ellipsis because the use is not "crystal clear" ... I think that would solve my doubt.. thanks

John likes his burger with cheese, Mary with butter.

The above sentence that uses ellipsis can be interpreted in either of the following ways:

1. John likes his burger with cheese; James likes Mary with butter. (non-sensical)
2. John likes his burger with cheese, Mary likes her burger with butter.

True. I just asked that out of curiosity.

Also, your second ellipsis sentence:
John likes his burger with cheese, Mary likes her burger with butter

incorrectly adds 'her',which does not occur previously in the sentence.

But I do get the point. Using an ellipsis might create ambiguity.

Than you, both Ashish & Mitch, for answering the query.