Sentence Correction

Last year, medical schools in the United States received only about half as much applications for admission as they had 25 years ago.

A. only about half as much applications for admission as they had

B. only about half as many applications for admission as they had

C. only about half of the applications for admission that they did

D. about only half as many applications for admission as they did

E. only about half as many applications for admission as they received

thephoenix wrote:Last year, medical schools in the United States received only about half as much applications for admission as they had 25 years ago.

A. only about half as much applications for admission as they had

B. only about half as many applications for admission as they had

C. only about half of the applications for admission that they did

D. about only half as many applications for admission as they did

E. only about half as many applications for admission as they received

IMO D.

>Applications are countable. many should be used.
>they did correctly corresponds to schools received. ||ism maintained

imo C

My answer is B

idiom- only about; as many as...rule out C & D
tense- received/did vs had (received) :: simple past vs past perfect

past perfect required here as we are comparing 2 events that occurred in the past

I vote for B

IMO B


but wud like 2 knw more about D -> about only half sounds good...

PHENIZ JI

wat's OA...

girish3131 wrote:IMO B


but wud like 2 knw more about D -> about only half sounds good...

PHENIZ JI

wat's OA...

If you have chosen B because you thought " two events in the past and one occurred before the other", then after had you need a participle of a verb to complete the past perfect tense. Just putting had won't suffice.

However, we would not need that tense here as the second event is clearly shown to have occurred before by using 25 yrs ago. So, verb form in past tense is okay.

As far as only about and about only is concerned, I'm still unsure which one's correct. I've read somewhere that only should be placed before the word it needs to modify. So, D makes sense.

If idiomatically about only is incorrect then, E , though wordier, would be the correct one.

harshavardhanc wrote:

girish3131 wrote:IMO B


but wud like 2 knw more about D -> about only half sounds good...

PHENIZ JI

wat's OA...

If you have chosen B because you thought " two events in the past and one occurred before the other", then after had you need a participle of a verb to complete the past perfect tense. Just putting had won't suffice.

However, we would not need that tense here as the second event is clearly shown to have occurred before by using 25 yrs ago. So, verb form in past tense is okay.

As far as only about and about only is concerned, I'm still unsure which one's correct. I've read somewhere that only should be placed before the word it needs to modify. So, D makes sense.

If idiomatically about only is incorrect then, E , though wordier, would be the correct one.

Thanks Harsha....

My mind said B but my heart was with D....

anyway... u mean to say that D wud be correct if we write it like....

--------------------------
Last year, medical schools in the United States received only about half as much applications for admission as they had had 25 years ago.


OR

Last year, medical schools in the United States received only about half as much applications for admission as they had received 25 years ago.
--------------------------------

give eg. plz wat u meant exactly by participle of verb in this sentence.. i mean how u wanna write it wen u r using participle of verb..

Thanks!

thephoenix wrote:Last year, medical schools in the United States received only about half as much applications for admission as they had 25 years ago.

A. only about half as much applications for admission as they had

B. only about half as many applications for admission as they had

C. only about half of the applications for admission that they did

D. about only half as many applications for admission as they did

E. only about half as many applications for admission as they received

IMO E. Paralleism

harshavardhanc wrote:

girish3131 wrote:IMO B


but wud like 2 knw more about D -> about only half sounds good...

PHENIZ JI

wat's OA...

If you have chosen B because you thought " two events in the past and one occurred before the other", then after had you need a participle of a verb to complete the past perfect tense. Just putting had won't suffice.

However, we would not need that tense here as the second event is clearly shown to have occurred before by using 25 yrs ago. So, verb form in past tense is okay.

As far as only about and about only is concerned, I'm still unsure which one's correct. I've read somewhere that only should be placed before the word it needs to modify. So, D makes sense.

If idiomatically about only is incorrect then, E , though wordier, would be the correct one.

if have read that had sometimes is also used as simple past tense especially if it is not followed by a participle in that case it means owning smethng
so B shud be correct here.....
i dnt have OA for this well lots of IMO's says its B

thephoenix wrote:
if have read that had sometimes is also used as simple past tense especially if it is not followed by a participle in that case it means owning smethng
so B shud be correct here.....
i dnt have OA for this well lots of IMO's says its B

precisely, had without a past participle would signify possession. We don't want that meaning here. Had received is very different from had.

The author's intent is to compare the number of applications received in the two years.

Let's look at the two sides of as many as once again :

->they corresponds to schools . (fine)
-> whereas did can correspond to receipt of applications, had without a past participle cannot.It will change the meaning. Therefore, you need either received or did after they.

Though I'm not an expert, but I think this reasoning is correct.

SOS instructors!

girish3131 wrote: give eg. plz wat u meant exactly by participle of verb in this sentence.. i mean how u wanna write it wen u r using participle of verb..

Actually, I wanted to say past participle above.

Anyway, here you go :

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/627/02/

harshavardhanc wrote:

thephoenix wrote:
if have read that had sometimes is also used as simple past tense especially if it is not followed by a participle in that case it means owning smethng
so B shud be correct here.....
i dnt have OA for this well lots of IMO's says its B

precisely, had without a past participle would signify possession. We don't want that meaning here. Had received is very different from had.

The author's intent is to compare the number of applications received in the two years.

Let's look at the two sides of as many as once again :

->they corresponds to schools . (fine)
-> whereas did can correspond to receipt of applications, had without a past participle cannot.It will change the meaning. Therefore, you need either had received or did after they.

Though I'm not an expert, but I think this reasoning is correct.

SOS instructors!

girish3131 wrote: give eg. plz wat u meant exactly by participle of verb in this sentence.. i mean how u wanna write it wen u r using participle of verb..

Actually, I wanted to say past participle above.

Anyway, here you go :

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/627/02/

I just said

acc to u ... these two should be correct which are written below....

--------------------------
Last year, medical schools in the United States received only about half as much applications for admission as they had had 25 years ago.


OR

Last year, medical schools in the United States received only about half as much applications for admission as they had received 25 years ago.
--------------------------------

???

girish3131 wrote:
I just said

acc to u ... these two should be correct which are written below....

--------------------------
Last year, medical schools in the United States received only about half as much applications for admission as they had had 25 years ago.


OR

Last year, medical schools in the United States received only about half as much applications for admission as they had received 25 years ago.
--------------------------------

???

first of all, the applications are countable. So, much is incorrect in both these sentences.

Second, you should compare similar things i.e use two logically and structurally parallel things on either side of as many as/ as much as.

None of the sentences, written above, does that.

They had received is grammatically correct, but can't be used here for the simple reason : restrictions on the usage of past perfect tense. We all know that this tense is used to show the relation of two events in the past and to show which one of them happened first.

The two events in our case are the receipt of applications. 25 yrs ago clearly shows that the second event (right of as many as ) has happened first. So, you cannot use had received or past perfect.

So, none of the sentences are correct according to me.

harshavardhanc wrote:

girish3131 wrote:
I just said

acc to u ... these two should be correct which are written below....

--------------------------
Last year, medical schools in the United States received only about half as much applications for admission as they had had 25 years ago.


OR

Last year, medical schools in the United States received only about half as much applications for admission as they had received 25 years ago.
--------------------------------

???

first of all, the applications are countable. So, much is incorrect in both these sentences.

Second, you should compare similar things i.e use two logically and structurally parallel things on either side of as many as/ as much as.

None of the sentences, written above, does that.

They had received is grammatically correct, but can't be used here for the simple reason : restrictions on the usage of past perfect tense. We all know that this tense is used to show the relation of two events in the past and to show which one of them happened first.

The two events in our case are the receipt of applications. 25 yrs ago clearly shows that the second event (right of as many as ) has happened first. So, you cannot use had received or past perfect.

So, none of the sentences are correct according to me.

haan yar.. unintentionally i added MUCH in place of MANY

anyway...

u mean to say that both event should be of different Kind to use HAD... ?

harshavardhanc wrote:

girish3131 wrote:
I just said

acc to u ... these two should be correct which are written below....

--------------------------
Last year, medical schools in the United States received only about half as much applications for admission as they had had 25 years ago.


OR

Last year, medical schools in the United States received only about half as much applications for admission as they had received 25 years ago.
--------------------------------

???

first of all, the applications are countable. So, much is incorrect in both these sentences.

Second, you should compare similar things i.e use two logically and structurally parallel things on either side of as many as/ as much as.

None of the sentences, written above, does that.

They had received is grammatically correct, but can't be used here for the simple reason : restrictions on the usage of past perfect tense. We all know that this tense is used to show the relation of two events in the past and to show which one of them happened first.

The two events in our case are the receipt of applications. 25 yrs ago clearly shows that the second event (right of as many as ) has happened first. So, you cannot use had received or past perfect.

So, none of the sentences are correct according to me.

Harsha,

I did go thru ur reasoning. I culd see all the emotions poured out to substantiate ur stance..Agreed.

Even my take also favours D. One thing for sure we cannot use "had" with out a following participle as in B.

More over in D usage of "only" restrict the usage with numbers as intended!!

I feel D is a better fit, much better than B!!

I think this is the first time i am supporting Harsh for a confronting situation..I have seen couple of quality posts from harsha stating some explicit facts..

Cheers Bro Harsha!!