modification question (experts)

[voodoo_child]

A survey by the National Council of Churches showed that in 1986 there were 20,376 female ministers, almost 9 percent of the nation's clergy, twice as much as 1977.
(A) twice as much as 1977
(B) twice as many as 1977
(C) double what it was in 1977
(D) double the figure for 1977
(E) a number double that of 1977's

I arrived at D by guessing that "twice as..." modifies the number of female ministers. However, why is that "twice as " is not modifying the appositive "almost 9 % of..."?

Thanks

[GMATGuruNY]

A survey by the National Council of Churches showed that in 1986 there were 20,376 female ministers, almost 9 percent of the nation's clergy, twice as much as 1977.
(A) twice as much as 1977
(B) twice as many as 1977
(C) double what it was in 1977
(D) double the figure for 1977
(E) a number double that of 1977's

I arrived at D by guessing that "twice as..." modifies the number of female ministers. However, why is that "twice as " is not modifying the appositive "almost 9 % of..."?

Thanks

In A and B, 9% (a percentage) is incorrectly compared to 1977 (a year). Eliminate A and B.

In E, of 1977's is an error of redundancy. It's sufficient to say of 1977; the possessive construction is unnecessary.

In C, it has no clear antecedent. (If it refers to 9%, then the sentence is saying in 1986...9% [was] double what 9% was in 1977, which makes no sense.) Eliminate C.

The correct answer is D.

[voodoo_child]

A survey by the National Council of Churches showed that in 1986 there were 20,376 female ministers, almost 9 percent of the nation's clergy, twice as much as 1977.
(A) twice as much as 1977
(B) twice as many as 1977
(C) double what it was in 1977
(D) double the figure for 1977
(E) a number double that of 1977's

I arrived at D by guessing that "twice as..." modifies the number of female ministers. However, why is that "twice as " is not modifying the appositive "almost 9 % of..."?

Thanks

In A and B, 9% (a percentage) is incorrectly compared to 1977 (a year). Eliminate A and B.

In E, of 1977's is an error of redundancy. It's sufficient to say of 1977; the possessive construction is unnecessary.

In C, it has no clear antecedent. (If it refers to 9%, then the sentence is saying in 1986...9% [was] double what 9% was in 1977, which makes no sense.) Eliminate C.

The correct answer is D.

thanks Mitch for your response. I really appreciate your help.

OG says that "twice as much as 1977" refers to "the number of ministers". I am not sure about the grammatical rule when we have an appositive between two comparisons. e.g.

the number of apples, almost 9% of country's total fruit production, more than that of oranges, in the basket are red. I have tried to come up with an example. I am not sure whether it makes sense. Can you please help me / correct the example if it's wrong ?

Thanks

[amit2k9]

A survey by the National Council of Churches showed that in 1986 there were 20,376 female ministers, almost 9 percent of the nation's clergy, twice as much as 1977.
(A) twice as much as 1977 -- verb 'in' or 'for' needed. POE
(B) twice as many as 1977 --many is not correct usage. POE
(C) double what it was in 1977 -- double of required. POE.
(D) double the figure for 1977 --proper usage.
(E) a number double that of 1977's -- wordy.

I arrived at D by guessing that "twice as..." modifies the number of female ministers. However, why is that "twice as " is not modifying the appositive "almost 9 % of..."?

percentage cannot be direct multiplication.It can be either an increase or a decrease.

Thanks

[mundasingh123]

A survey by the National Council of Churches showed that in 1986 there were 20,376 female ministers, almost 9 percent of the nation's clergy, twice as much as 1977.
(A) twice as much as 1977
(B) twice as many as 1977
(C) double what it was in 1977
(D) double the figure for 1977
(E) a number double that of 1977's

I arrived at D by guessing that "twice as..." modifies the number of female ministers. However, why is that "twice as " is not modifying the appositive "almost 9 % of..."?

Thanks

In A and B, 9% (a percentage) is incorrectly compared to 1977 (a year). Eliminate A and B.

In E, of 1977's is an error of redundancy. It's sufficient to say of 1977; the possessive construction is unnecessary.

In C, it has no clear antecedent. (If it refers to 9%, then the sentence is saying in 1986...9% [was] double what 9% was in 1977, which makes no sense.) Eliminate C.

The correct answer is D.

Hi GmatGuruNY , in E isnt (a number ...) an appositive and doesnt it require a noun to modify . The only noun in its vicinity is "20,376 female ministers" and 20376 ministaers are not a number