Quantity expressions - Plural or singualar

[beater]

Despite the increasing number of women graduating from law school and passing bar examinations, the proportion of judges and partners at major law firms who are women has not risen comparably

In the sentence above do you agree with the verb HAS? I believe HAS should be replaced by HAVE because the quantities presented (judges and partners) are clearly plural in number. What say?



FYI - This question is from OG 11 (Diagnostic section: 43)

[griscomtestprep]

'Has' is correct because 'proportion,' like 'number,' is singular. It doesn't matter that the nouns that come after it are plural.

[lunarpower]

ah yes, subtle idiom at work here.

THE proportion is singular, because the sentence is literally talking about the fraction, not about the people themselves.
for confirmation of this, look at the verb: risen. clearly we're talking about whether the fraction is rising, not about whether the women judges themselves are rising.
therefore, singular.

A large proportion of... is plural, because that sentence would be addressing the people themselves, not the fraction.
for instance, "a large proportion of young people vote in local elections" would be correct.
here, the verb "vote" confirms that we're talking about the people themselves, not about the fraction (fractions can't vote).
therefore, plural.

if you have trouble following this subtle logic, then you may be better advised to make flash cards of these, and consider them as examples of idiomatic usage.

[mohish]

Actually, plural or singular is the least of issues here.


I completely fail to understand why 'who' in this case is not modifying 'major law firms'. I understand that 'who' can only modify 'living things' and since that was not the case here, I thought this choice was not correct. But apparently, as per the OG, this sentence is correct.

Can an expert please explain.

[cramya]

"who" is a subject pronoun and it refers back to proportion(subject of the 2nd clause).

major law firms is object of the preposition at

Someone pl correct me if I am mistken.

[mohish]

"who" is a subject pronoun and it refers back to proportion(subject of the 2nd clause).

Actually, according to OG, who is modifying "judges and partners". Also, by the logic you've provided, in the following sentence:

Even as they never forgave the Crusaders who overran their homeland, the Syrians have never absolved the French for taking territory from them

who should refer to they (both who and they are subject-pronouns of their respective clauses), but in this case, who modifies Crusaders.

Another one:

As an actress, and more importantly as a teacher of acting, Stella Adler was one of the most influential artists in the American theater, who trained several generations of actors including Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro.

OG says: "Relative (who) clause follows theater rather than Adler" and hence this sentence is wrong.

[lunarpower]

Actually, plural or singular is the least of issues here.


I completely fail to understand why 'who' in this case is not modifying 'major law firms'. I understand that 'who' can only modify 'living things' and since that was not the case here, I thought this choice was not correct. But apparently, as per the OG, this sentence is correct.

Can an expert please explain.

you're trying to apply the rule that works for relative pronouns FOLLOWING COMMAS (which, who, etc.)

if "who" (or "which" or "whom" or...) FOLLOWS A COMMA, then, yes, it automatically applies to the NEAREST noun.

however, if there's NO COMMA (i.e., it's an "essential modifier"), then this rule does not apply, and the modifier rules are somewhat more relaxed. in particular, these modifiers (with who, that, etc. WITHOUT commas) can apply to entire noun phrases that precede them.

on this the gmat is consistent. see the correct answer to #50 in the o.g. diagnostic test for another example of the same phenomenon.

--

short version: your rule would only apply if who were following a comma.
life would be easier if the o.g. would just come out and say these things, but it doesn't.

[vineetbatra]

Ron,

As part of the same question choice b writes "the proportion of women judges and partners at major law firm"

The explanation says that women does not apply to partners at major law firms but only applies to women.

Can you please explain this, because I read something somewhere that said it should apply to both.

Thanks,

Vineet

[vaibhav.iit2002]

short version: your rule would only apply if who were following a comma.
life would be easier if the o.g. would just come out and say these things, but it doesn't.

Ron, which is correct in your opinion?
The 151 member governments are expected to increase the bank's funding by $75 m, though some legislators cite a concern as an obstacle to congressional passage that the bank's loan will help foreign producers compete with American businesses.
a. same
b. as an obstacle to congressional passage the concern

[lunarpower]

short version: your rule would only apply if who were following a comma.
life would be easier if the o.g. would just come out and say these things, but it doesn't.

Ron, which is correct in your opinion?
The 151 member governments are expected to increase the bank's funding by $75 m, though some legislators cite a concern as an obstacle to congressional passage that the bank's loan will help foreign producers compete with American businesses.
a. same
b. as an obstacle to congressional passage the concern

this is (b).

see here:
https://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/pos ... tml#p28710

in THIS example:

there are 2 constructions that you cannot split up:
* as an obstacle to congressional passage
* the concern that the bank's loan will help foreign producers compete with American businesses

both of these go with "cite" (the former as a restrictive modifier, the latter as a direct object).
since both of these are supposed to be tagged directly onto "cite", you have to make a decision about which to put first.

so, you can pick
some legislators cite as an obstacle to congressional passage the concern that the bank's loan will help foreign producers compete with American businesses
or
some legislators cite the concern that the bank's loan will help foreign producers compete with American businesses as an obstacle to congressional passage

these are both correct, but the first of these is more readable and less awkward.

in any case, your (a) is wrong, because it splits up "the concern that..."

[vineetbatra]

ah yes, subtle idiom at work here.

THE proportion is singular, because the sentence is literally talking about the fraction, not about the people themselves.
for confirmation of this, look at the verb: risen. clearly we're talking about whether the fraction is rising, not about whether the women judges themselves are rising.
therefore, singular.

A large proportion of... is plural, because that sentence would be addressing the people themselves, not the fraction.
for instance, "a large proportion of young people vote in local elections" would be correct.
here, the verb "vote" confirms that we're talking about the people themselves, not about the fraction (fractions can't vote).
therefore, plural.

if you have trouble following this subtle logic, then you may be better advised to make flash cards of these, and consider them as examples of idiomatic usage.

Ron,

The MGMAT SC guide mentions that quantity expressions such as A number of, half of, majority of etc use the subject of the prepositional phrase to identify whether the subject is plural or singular, it also mentions that if the clause begins with THE Number of then it is always singular.

But I see another example that says "The majority of students are hard workers"; here the sentence is using the construction THE Majority and not A Majority, but still the verb is plural.

Can you please explain Proportion with regard to this.

Thanks,

Vineet

[lunarpower]

Ron,

The MGMAT SC guide mentions that quantity expressions such as A number of, half of, majority of etc use the subject of the prepositional phrase to identify whether the subject is plural or singular, it also mentions that if the clause begins with THE Number of then it is always singular.

But I see another example that says "The majority of students are hard workers"; here the sentence is using the construction THE Majority and not A Majority, but still the verb is plural.

Can you please explain Proportion with regard to this.

Thanks,

Vineet

hi - i saw that you quoted my post, but i'm not sure of the connection between that quoted post and what you've written above.

yes, "the number of" is always singular - but that's just "the number of". as is the case with other idiomatic expressions, you can't generalize this to all similar constructions.

[lunarpower]

in any case, in most sentences, it will be easier to use context than to memorize tons and tons of different singular/plural conventions.
for instance, in the sentence you've quoted - "the majority of students ______ hard workers" - the context, as well as the plural quality of "hard workers", shows that you're talking about students (plural).

in general, here are some hints.

* if you're talking about a literal fraction or proportion, then you should use the singular.
ex: the proportion of residents who are of filipino descent has increased steadily over the last ten years. --> the proportion itself has increased (the residents haven't "increased"), so, singular.

* if you're talking about a group of people or things, acting separately, then you should use the plural.
ex: the majority of students turn in their papers in the last hour before the deadline.

* if you're talking about a portion of some mass noun and/or singular thing, then you should use the singular.
ex: the majority of the student body votes in the election each year. (since "student body" is singular)

these won't cover every case - but, in most cases, you can cover yourself by thinking about context.

[vineetbatra]

Thanks Ron, makes much more sense now.

Vineet

[mundasingh123]

Actually, plural or singular is the least of issues here.


I completely fail to understand why 'who' in this case is not modifying 'major law firms'. I understand that 'who' can only modify 'living things' and since that was not the case here, I thought this choice was not correct. But apparently, as per the OG, this sentence is correct.

Can an expert please explain.

you're trying to apply the rule that works for relative pronouns FOLLOWING COMMAS (which, who, etc.)

if "who" (or "which" or "whom" or...) FOLLOWS A COMMA, then, yes, it automatically applies to the NEAREST noun.

however, if there's NO COMMA (i.e., it's an "essential modifier"), then this rule does not apply, and the modifier rules are somewhat more relaxed. in particular, these modifiers (with who, that, etc. WITHOUT commas) can apply to entire noun phrases that precede them.

on this the gmat is consistent. see the correct answer to #50 in the o.g. diagnostic test for another example of the same phenomenon.

--

short version: your rule would only apply if who were following a comma.
life would be easier if the o.g. would just come out and say these things, but it doesn't.

Ron , why is E wrong here . This Sc is from OG 10 .
As you stated , the that clause is more flexible than a which clause. The MGMAT sc guide also states that the that clause can modify a noun seperated from it by a prepositional phrase

In 1973 mortgage payments represented twenty-one percent of an average thirty-year-old male's income;
and forty-four percent in 1984.
(A) income; and forty-four percent in 1984
(B) income; in 1984 the figure was forty-four percent
(C) income, and in 1984 forty-four percent
(D) income, forty-four percent in 1984 was the figure
(E) income that rose to forty-four percent in 1984

The OG Expln. is To establish the clearest comparison between circumstances in 1973 and those in 1984, a separate clause is needed to describe each year. Choices A and C, in failing to use separate clauses, are too elliptical and therefore unclear. Choice A also incorrectly uses and and a semicolon to separate an independent clause and a phrase. Choice D incorrectly separates two independent clauses with a comma; moreover, the placement of in 1984 is awkward and confusing. In choice E, that refers illogically to income, thereby producing the misstatement that income rather than mortgage payments rose to forty-four percent in 1984. Choice B is best;
two properly constructed clauses that clearly express the comparison are separated by a semicolon.