Each year companies in United States could save as much as

[tim]

:)

[souvik1225]

Each year companies in United States could save as much as $58 billion annually by preventing illness among employees and gain as much as $200 billion through improving performance of workers if they simply provided offices with cleaner air.

(D) in employee illness prevention and gain as much as $200 billion through improving performance of workers if they simply provided

Quick question

I eliminated D with this "meaning" reasoning: it appears that the companies are saving money in this "illness prevention program" so to speak. It appears they spend about $500 M, and they will now spend about $300 M in this program. The intended meaning, however, is that the companies will save money because more people will show up at work healthy and take less sick days.

Am I meaning ninja or a meaning imbecile?

[RonPurewal]

you're right that the meaning is wonky in that choice.

you've named one possible interpretation of "in xxxx" (which, as you've pointed out, is a nonsense interpretation).

there's also another meaning of "$yyyy in xxxx", one with which you're surely familiar: namely, the sense in which "xxxx" represents some cost that is measured in dollars (e.g., You can save $10,000 in shipping costs by using a different carrier.)
that interpretation, here, is also nonsense. so, yes, nonsense overall.

[weiw49]

you're right that the meaning is wonky in that choice.

you've named one possible interpretation of "in xxxx" (which, as you've pointed out, is a nonsense interpretation).

there's also another meaning of "$yyyy in xxxx", one with which you're surely familiar: namely, the sense in which "xxxx" represents some cost that is measured in dollars (e.g., You can save $10,000 in shipping costs by using a different carrier.)
that interpretation, here, is also nonsense. so, yes, nonsense overall.

(D) in employee illness prevention and gain as much as $200 billion through improving performance of workers if they simply provided
(E) by preventing illness among employees and gain as much as $200 billion through improved worker performance if they simply provided

1\is the "worker" in E play the role as an adj.? --> through improved(adj.) worker(adj.) performance(n.) I rule e out because I think they can't refer to a adj.
2\I can catch your explanation about "$YYY in XXX", but I'm confused that....... if I want to express the meaning: you can save $10000 and the $10000 is a part of the shipping costs. What should I use instead of "in"??? Is "$10000 of shipping costs " right???

[RonPurewal]

1\is the "worker" in E play the role as an adj.? --> through improved(adj.) worker(adj.) performance(n.) I rule e out because I think they can't refer to a adj.

"they" = companies

the companies "provide offices with cleaner air". (the workers certainly don't provide offices!)

if this is a problem, then, i'm guessing, maybe you didn't know the word "provide" (= 'give', basically). if you're clear on what "provide" means, then it should be obvious that "they" does not stand for the workers.

[RonPurewal]

2\I can catch your explanation about "$YYY in XXX", but I'm confused that....... if I want to express the meaning: you can save $10000 and the $10000 is a part of the shipping costs. What should I use instead of "in"?

the "$10,000 in shipping costs" sentence is a CORRECT illustration of "$xxx in yyy". so, we don't use anything else; we use "in".

[RonPurewal]

–––NOTHING IN THIS POST IS RELEVANT TO THE GMAT EXAM–––

Is "$10000 of shipping costs " right???

no, although there is no way on earth that the distinction would ever be tested on this exam.

in INFORMAL usage (or where space is at a premium, e.g., newspapers), you might see something like $1000 of clothes and $5000 of bicycles were stolen.
in FORMAL usage, though, these would have to be re-written, e.g., a thousand dollars' worth of clothes and five thousand dollars' worth of bicycles.

off the top of my head, i can think of only one instance in which "$x of..." is correct formal usage—namely, if $x is a fraction of some larger monetary amount.
Marta brought $500 in spending money on her two-week vacation, but, by the end of the first day, she had already spent $200 of that money. (note that it's $500 IN spending money, not $500 OF spending money)
Even if Larry Ellison's daughter manages to spend $10 billion of her father's money, there will still be three or four times that amount in his accounts.

–––NOTHING IN THIS POST IS RELEVANT TO THE GMAT EXAM–––

[XuanL928]

Hi Ron,

I ruled out (D) because I think "companies could gain through improved worker performance" is inferior to "companies could gain through improving worker performance".

I recall what you have said in one Thursday with Ron video about the distinction, sorry I cannot specifically figure out which video. But the meaning of "through improved work performance" focuses on the NOUN, "performance", rather than "improving". In terms of the intended meaning, I think it is really bad to say "gain through (improved) worker performance".

Could you please let me know whether you have noticed this distinction and what's your idea?

many thanks!

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

First of all, I would question your strategy. You said that you chose D because you "you think [something] is inferior". What reason do you have for this? What's your evidence? I encourage you to use more logic and grammar and not just rely on your instinct (which, in this case, was mistaken).

In any case, that split between D and E is a tough one (through improving / through improved). You'd be better off focusing on the start of the sentence (by preventing / in prevention). This is an easier idiom, and you can test it by making your own example, e.g. "I'll save $100 by purchasing cheaper food", rather than "I'll save $100 in cheaper food purchase."