Sentence Correction

Hi guys,

I am having a hard time discerning between choices A&D. It's a recurring theme, so could someone clarify this once and for all. To me choice A is correct, but apparently it's choice D that is right. Can someone explain why?

For the first time in the modern era, non-Hispanic Whites are officially a minority in California, which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly there-quarters only a decade ago.

A. which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly three-quarters only a decade ago
B. which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from a decade ago, when it was nearly three-quarters
C. and that amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from a decade ago, when they were nearly three-quarters
D. amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly three-quarters a decade ago
E. amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from what it was a decade ago by nearly three-quarters

In choice 5 "down from what it was a decade ago by nearly three-quarters" is wordy as compared to choice 4 " down from nearly three-quarters a decade ago".

This is what my understanding.
Any expert/s vew here !!

Amit

Thanks Amit. Any general ideas about choices A vs. choice D.

.....California, which amounts to......
.....California, amounting......


I'm not sure about the grammar rules here. Is D absolutely right and A absolutely wrong, or is this an issue of which one is "more correct" (stuff that I dislike about the GMAT)

Hello, publicproxy.

I think 'which amouts to' is not at all a problem. This question seems more about clarity.

If we use 'which amounts', it sounds confusing because we are not sure whether 'California' amount or 'non-Hispanic Whites' amounts.
By using 'amounting~', we can specify the subject more clearly, because usually a subject of the participle sentence is the subject of the main sentence.

Hi Celeste,

Yes, now I do see the problem. I guess I take it for granted in daily conversation, but I can see why someone could be confused.

Thanks

When you say "which amounts to", "which" refers to the word immediately before the comma. That would be "California", but the verb "amounts" cannot refer to the state. The expression "non-Hispanic Whites" is the subject of the first clause. In this case, "amounting to" is the right choice, since it refers to that subject.". Hope this helps.

Teaching4life wrote:When you say "which amounts to", "which" refers to the word immediately before the comma. That would be "California", but the verb "amounts" cannot refer to the state. The expression "non-Hispanic Whites" is the subject of the first clause. In this case, "amounting to" is the right choice, since it refers to that subject.". Hope this helps.

You drilled down 2008 post brother ..... I don't think "publicproxy" is still there to read you

Here, only contenders are D and E..

in A, B , C that and which doesn't prefer previous clause.


E is wordy and misplaced modifier error.

mgmt_gmat wrote:Here, only contenders are D and E..

in A, B , C that and which doesn't prefer previous clause.


E is wordy and misplaced modifier error.

E is wrong not coz of misplaced modifier but coz of ambiguousIT

why A is wrong ? this is most important inhere.

A is wrong not because of mechanic error-which is far from it antecedent- but because of logic error.

pls, help point out

expert Hunt, Please, help us

A is wrong because of the word "which"

",which" should modify the noun just before it and also (someone please correct me if I am wrong), which should not modify people...

For the first time in the modern era, non-Hispanic Whites are officially a minority in California, which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly there-quarters only a decade ago.

A. which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly three-quarters only a decade ago
B. which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from a decade ago, when it was nearly three-quarters
C. and that amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from a decade ago, when they were nearly three-quarters
D. amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly three-quarters a decade ago
E. amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from what it was a decade ago by nearly three-quarters

In A and B, which seems to refer to California, implying that CALIFORNIA amounts to a little less than half the population -- a nonsensical meaning.
Eliminate A and B.

In C, that lacks a clear antecedent.
Eliminate C.

In E, it lacks a clear antecedent.
Eliminate E.

The correct answer is D.

Here, amounts and amounting serve different grammatical functions.
The subject of amounts in A, B and C is the preceding pronoun (which/that).
The result is a nonsensical/unclear meaning.
But COMMA + VERBing refers to the SUBJECT OF THE PRECEDING CLAUSE.
Thus, in the OA, amounting refers to non-Hispanic Whites, conveying the intended meaning: that NON-HISPANIC WHITES are AMOUNTING to a little less than half the population.

E also changes the meaning by reducing the amount BY three quarters. Amount was reduced from 3 quarters.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

For the first time in the modern era, non-Hispanic Whites are officially a minority in California, which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly there-quarters only a decade ago.

A. which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly three-quarters only a decade ago
B. which amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from a decade ago, when it was nearly three-quarters
C. and that amounts to a little less than half the population of the state, down from a decade ago, when they were nearly three-quarters
D. amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from nearly three-quarters a decade ago
E. amounting to a little less than half the population of the state, down from what it was a decade ago by nearly three-quarters

In A and B, which seems to refer to California, implying that CALIFORNIA amounts to a little less than half the population -- a nonsensical meaning.
Eliminate A and B.

In C, that lacks a clear antecedent.
Eliminate C.

In E, it lacks a clear antecedent.
Eliminate E.

The correct answer is D.

Here, amounts and amounting serve different grammatical functions.
The subject of amounts in A, B and C is the preceding pronoun (which/that).
The result is a nonsensical/unclear meaning.
But COMMA + VERBing refers to the SUBJECT OF THE PRECEDING CLAUSE.
Thus, in the OA, amounting refers to non-Hispanic Whites, conveying the intended meaning: that NON-HISPANIC WHITES are AMOUNTING to a little less than half the population.

which can modify a far noun , it is not neccessary that which alway modify immediately preceding noun

A is wrong because we need a causal/explanatary relation between two ideas as in D

am I correct?