Between 1990 and 2000 the global economy

[vrajesh.dave]

Between 1990 and 2000 the global economy grew more than it did during the 10,000 years from the beginning of agriculture to 1950.

B. Between 1990 and 2000 the global economy grew more than that during 10,000 years, from when agriculture began

C. The growth of the global economy between 1990 and 2000 exceeds that which has been for 10,000 years from the beginning of agriculture

D. The growth of the global economy between 1990 and 2000 exceeds what it has been for 10,000 years, from when agriculture began

E. The growth of the global economy between 1990 and 2000 exceeded what it did for 10,000 years from the beginning of agriculture

OA: A

Can someone explain me this one.

thanks

[amitganguly2k12]

B. Between 1990 and 2000 the global economy grew more than that during 10,000 years, from when agriculture began - The logic of the sub-ordinate clause - agriculture began ...during 10,000 years is wrong.

C. The growth of the global economy between 1990 and 2000 exceeds that which has been for 10,000 years from the beginning of agriculture - 1.Exceed - used for abstract form of comparison - 'Her performance exceeded our expectations'. Here growth is essentially a numeric figure.2.Tense - Declarative sentence - 2 events.Previous growth figure since 10k years has seized to exist,as it has been replaced by new figure.So had been should come into play.

D. The growth of the global economy between 1990 and 2000 exceeds what it has been for 10,000 years, from when agriculture began - Use of from is wrong.Since is better as an event of past is brought into present for comparison.Also the above mentioned reasonings apply.

E. The growth of the global economy between 1990 and 2000 exceeded what it did for 10,000 years from the beginning of agriculture - Use of did is wrong.Did is past participle form of do verb.Growth has indeed not performed any action as such.

That leaves A.

I leave the floor open for discussion,as my reasonings might be incomplete.
Thanks

[acethegmat]

This qs is from GMATPrep

Ron, Can you please explain this one.

[RonPurewal]

see here

since-1990-the-global-economy-has-grown-more-than-it-did-t552.html

weirdly enough, it appears that these two questions are identical other than in the very first words.

[cshen02]

Hey,

Would anyone check whether I get the following right?
In choice A, "it" refers to "the global economy". I recall that the pronoun it can only refer to the same actual thing, so doubted whether "it" is correct here. But since A is the key, I would say "economy" is a changing noun as it performs differently in separate time periods. Does the analysis sound right?

I would also like to know, how to split the choices of this prep problem. When we sit for test, I don't think one should give any problem more than 2 mins, so knowing how to pick right answers efficiently is crucial!

Cheers!

[RonPurewal]

[color=#FF40BF]Hey,

Would anyone check whether I get the following right?
In choice A, "it" refers to "the global economy". I recall that the pronoun it can only refer to the same actual thing, so doubted whether "it" is correct here. But since A is the key, I would say "economy" is a changing noun as it performs differently in separate time periods. Does the analysis sound right?

It's still the global economy.

You need to distinguish between (a) the same entity at different points, and (b) legitimately different entities.
People and things evolve with time, but, as long as you're still talking about the same people/things, you can use pronouns.

E.g.,
Tom is almost 6 inches taller than he was two years ago.
It should be clear that "he" = "Tom" is ok. I.e., Tom is not a different person because he's two years older! He's still Tom.

Or,
The air quality of Los Angeles is substantially higher now than it was twenty years ago.

Also ok.

If the noun has a timeframe attached to it, THEN any pronoun will carry that same timeframe. E.g., if a sentence contains "The air quality of Los Angeles 20 years ago", then "it" would carry that particular timeframe.
E.g.,
The air quality of Los Angeles 20 years ago was substantially worse than it is now.
This sentence is wrong, because, this time, "it" = "the air quality of L.A. twenty years ago". That's not something that exists in the present.

[RonPurewal]

By the way"”Please post in the default color, unless you are specifically highlighting something. Thanks.

I would also like to know, how to split the choices of this prep problem. When we sit for test, I don't think one should give any problem more than 2 mins, so knowing how to pick right answers efficiently is crucial!

Cheers!

The best answer to this problem is:
* Find a difference in the choices.
* If you can, use it to eliminate.
* Find another difference.
* Repeat.

We can't dictate an order in which you should examine the issues you find"”that's different for each individual test taker.

Just make sure that, BEFORE you look at any splits, you have a firm idea of the sentence's intended meaning.
From your initial reading, you should understand the intended function of every word that appears in the sentence. When you're examining splits, you should never have to stop and figure out the intended meaning"”you should already know it.

[cshen02]

By the way"”Please post in the default color, unless you are specifically highlighting something. Thanks.

Thanks for your help, Ron! Yeah, sure! Will stick to the default color:)

[RonPurewal]

Ok.

[TonyChen1984]

[color=#FF40BF]Hey,

Would anyone check whether I get the following right?
In choice A, "it" refers to "the global economy". I recall that the pronoun it can only refer to the same actual thing, so doubted whether "it" is correct here. But since A is the key, I would say "economy" is a changing noun as it performs differently in separate time periods. Does the analysis sound right?

It's still the global economy.

You need to distinguish between (a) the same entity at different points, and (b) legitimately different entities.
People and things evolve with time, but, as long as you're still talking about the same people/things, you can use pronouns.

E.g.,
Tom is almost 6 inches taller than he was two years ago.
It should be clear that "he" = "Tom" is ok. I.e., Tom is not a different person because he's two years older! He's still Tom.

Or,
The air quality of Los Angeles is substantially higher now than it was twenty years ago.

Also ok.

If the noun has a timeframe attached to it, THEN any pronoun will carry that same timeframe. E.g., if a sentence contains "The air quality of Los Angeles 20 years ago", then "it" would carry that particular timeframe.
E.g.,
The air quality of Los Angeles 20 years ago was substantially worse than it is now.
This sentence is wrong, because, this time, "it" = "the air quality of L.A. twenty years ago". That's not something that exists in the present.

Hi Ron,
Thanks for the fantastic explanation, however, this rule seems difficult for me who is a non-native speaker to remember.
I understand that this is the "The Deadly Five" rule mentioned in the Manhattan SC guide, but every time i saw such kind of thing it confuses me a lot. Is there a way to remember the rule for people like me? How do you native speaker understand the difference? More specifically, I would like to understand why "this", "that", "these ", and "those" are not carrying the modifiers attached to them?

The rule:
It, Its, They, Them, Their -> refers to subject with modifier
This, That, These and Those -> refers to the subject only

[RonPurewal]

It, Its, They, Them, Their -> refers to subject with modifier

Yes.

This, That, These and Those -> refers to the subject only

Yes for "that" and "those".
"This" shouldn't be a pronoun at all. It should be used strictly as an adjective (this thing, this country, this idea, etc.)
"These" isn't normally used as a pronoun, either, except when it's impossible to group things in any other way without ruining the sentence (or making it impossible to read).

[RonPurewal]

More specifically, I would like to understand why "this", "that", "these ", and "those" are not carrying the modifiers attached to them?

This is the reason why the pronouns "that" and "those" exist in the first place!
They exist specifically NOT to carry attached modifiers, so that comparisons can be made smoothly.

E.g.,
The government of country X is more stable than that of country Y.
Can't use "it" (which would have to refer to the government of country X).
Hence "that", which is a tool specifically engineered to refer to "the government" WITHOUT the modifier. That's the whole reason why it exists.

[ArmaanH201]

Help!!!!

In option A
Shouldn't "what' be mentioned after "than"?
Thanks.
:D

[RonPurewal]

Help!!!!

In option A
Shouldn't "what' be mentioned after "than"?
Thanks.
:D

"Is the official correct answer wrong?"

No.

[Paris,Texas]

[color=#FF40BF]Hey,

Would anyone check whether I get the following right?
In choice A, "it" refers to "the global economy". I recall that the pronoun it can only refer to the same actual thing, so doubted whether "it" is correct here. But since A is the key, I would say "economy" is a changing noun as it performs differently in separate time periods. Does the analysis sound right?

It's still the global economy.

You need to distinguish between (a) the same entity at different points, and (b) legitimately different entities.
People and things evolve with time, but, as long as you're still talking about the same people/things, you can use pronouns.

E.g.,
Tom is almost 6 inches taller than he was two years ago.
It should be clear that "he" = "Tom" is ok. I.e., Tom is not a different person because he's two years older! He's still Tom.

Or,
The air quality of Los Angeles is substantially higher now than it was twenty years ago.

Also ok.

If the noun has a timeframe attached to it, THEN any pronoun will carry that same timeframe. E.g., if a sentence contains "The air quality of Los Angeles 20 years ago", then "it" would carry that particular timeframe.
E.g.,
The air quality of Los Angeles 20 years ago was substantially worse than it is now.
This sentence is wrong, because, this time, "it" = "the air quality of L.A. twenty years ago". That's not something that exists in the present.

Hi, Ron, sorry to bump this thread again.

I'm confused on the 'if the noun has a timeframe attached to it, then any pronoun will carry that same timeframe'

er, according to above, why don't we consider 'between 1990 and 2000' a timeframe attached to 'the global economy' in choice A?

I know that official answer will never wrong, yet I just want to confirm that which constructions (such as 20 years ago& between 1990 and 2000) can be viewed as timeframe attached to the referent.

Thanks in advance.