In the 1980’s the rate of increase

[jn.mohit]

Hi Stacey,

For this particular type of questions. When we have the rate of increase is it redundant to use the "as fast as" ? if yes then why ?

Also why 'what' is more preferred over 'it' ?

In the 1980’s the rate of increase of the minority population of the United States was nearly twice as fast as the 1970’s.

(A) twice as fast as
(B) twice as fast as it was in
(C) twice what it was in
(D) two times faster than that of
(E) two times greater than

[RonPurewal]

Hi Stacey,

For this particular type of questions. When we have the rate of increase is it redundant to use the "as fast as" ? if yes then why ?

in this case, you have a problem of redundancy:
a RATE can't be FAST.
* the rate can be high;
* the increase itself can be fast.
similarly,
a height can't be tall (a person can be tall, or a height can be greater than...)
a bank account can't be rich (a person can be rich, or a bank account can contain a large amount of money)
etc.

lest you think this is just a matter of excessive nitpicking on our part, this difference is corroborated by several official problems.

Also why 'what' is more preferred over 'it' ?

hmm?
you are not choosing between those two words; note that both of them are present in the correct answer (c).

[jn.mohit]

Hi Stacey,

For this particular type of questions. When we have the rate of increase is it redundant to use the "as fast as" ? if yes then why ?

in this case, you have a problem of redundancy:
a RATE can't be FAST.
* the rate can be high;
* the increase itself can be fast.
similarly,
a height can't be tall (a person can be tall, or a height can be greater than...)
a bank account can't be rich (a person can be rich, or a bank account can contain a large amount of money)
etc.

lest you think this is just a matter of excessive nitpicking on our part, this difference is corroborated by several official problems.

Also why 'what' is more preferred over 'it' ?

hmm?
you are not choosing between those two words; note that both of them are present in the correct answer (c).

Thanks Ron !!

The mist is clear now.
I have a similar problem of comparison here. Please let me know if I need to open a new thread for this.


There are hopeful signs that we are shifting away from our heavy reliance on fosil fuels; more than ten times as much energy is generated through wind power now than it was in 1990.

A....
B. generated through wind power now as it was
C. generated through wind power now as was the case
D. now generated through wind power as it was
E. now generated through wind power than was the case


In this question the correct ans uses as for comparision. Can you please explain the grammer logic used here ?

[RonPurewal]

The mist is clear now.
I have a similar problem of comparison here. Please let me know if I need to open a new thread for this.

yes, you always need to open a new thread when you are discussing a new question. the forum rules state that only one question should be discussed per thread.

by the way, you should always SEARCH for the problem before you start a new thread on it; most problems (in fact, almost all of them) on gmatprep are already on this forum.

here's an existing thread for the problem you cited:
there-are-hopeful-signs-that-t3322.html
go post your question over on that thread. thanks.

[ashish-mohan]

Hi Ron,

Would the following sentence be correct:

In the 1980’s the rate of increase of the minority population of the United States was nearly twice the 1970’s.

My colleague contents that the above sentence illogically compares "the rate of increase.." with a 'decade' (1970's).

However, I believe the above sentence correct and can be interpreted as:

In the 1980’s the rate of increase of the minority population of the United States was nearly twice the (rate of increase of the minority population of the United States in the) 1970’s.

Thanks,

[mschwrtz]

I'm with your colleague, I'm afraid. Can you tell me why you think that this ellipsis is correct? Can you give me a correct example that seems to you to be analogous?

It's hard to give very precise rules for ellipses. Among the problems with your proposed sentence are:

-the earlier counterpart that you want to read into the sentence doesn't have the same structure as does your supposed ellipsis

-any time a noun immediately follows an article, we will take that article to be part of that very noun, so no way we're sliding anything in between the and 1970s.

[ashish-mohan]

Thanks mschwrtz. I actually think both parts do have the same structure. But for clarity sake, lets take the following:

The rate of increase of the minority population of the United States In the 1980’s was nearly twice the 1970’s.

Now, can we interpret the above sentence as:

The rate of increase of the minority population of the United States in the 1980’s was nearly twice (the rate of increase of the minority population of the United States in ) the 1970’s.

I believe the above takes care of both your points (same structure and article being a part of the noun).

Thanks in anticipation.

[ashish-mohan]

Hi mschwrtz, could you please reply.

[mschwrtz]

Hey Ashish, sorry I didn't get back to you right away. I'm usually on the forums just once a week or so. Also, for faster response, don't bump your questions, as we answer from oldest to newest.

Now, to the question itself. Good point that we could simply move the parentheses to remove the problem with the article. Still I wouldn't read

The rate of increase of the minority population of the United States in the 1980’s was nearly twice the 1970’s.

as

The rate of increase of the minority population of the United States in the 1980’s was nearly twice (the rate of increase of the minority population of the United States in ) the 1970’s.

It seems to me that any sentence of the form

The X was twice the Y.

where X and Y are both nouns, would naturally be read as comparing X and Y directly. I'm improvising here, to tell you the truth, so I'm not sure if that would be the natural reading for every comparative phrase.

I'll be back for about an hour tomorrow, so if I turn up anything useful in the meantime, I'll let you know. I'd love to hear counterexamples from you or other users.

[ashish-mohan]

Hi mschwrtz, thanks for your reply; thought my question had somehow slipped thru the cracks.

Essentially what would clear the air is an example from an official source of this nature:

The X is (more than/greater than/lesser than/twice) Y

and the official explanation does not use ellipsis (even if "exact same" words from the first half could be reused to give the above example a meaningful interpretation) and mentions that X and Y are illogically being compared.

My humble request to you would be to ask MGMAT instructor community to quickly check if someone recollects any such instance from an official source. I would also try to look at my end, but clearly the resources (both expertise and the extent) available at your end would be much more than at my end. That would conclusively put an end to all speculations.

[RonPurewal]

Hi mschwrtz, thanks for your reply; thought my question had somehow slipped thru the cracks.

Essentially what would clear the air is an example from an official source of this nature:

The X is (more than/greater than/lesser than/twice) Y

and the official explanation does not use ellipsis (even if "exact same" words from the first half could be reused to give the above example a meaningful interpretation) and mentions that X and Y are illogically being compared.

My humble request to you would be to ask MGMAT instructor community to quickly check if someone recollects any such instance from an official source. I would also try to look at my end, but clearly the resources (both expertise and the extent) available at your end would be much more than at my end. That would conclusively put an end to all speculations.

hmm

i'm not 100% sure that i understand your request -- in particular, i don't understand the part in parentheses (the part that i yellowed out).

but, if you ignore the part in parentheses, then OG12 #89, choice (a), satisfies the rest of what you've written.

[anshul.mah]

Hi ManhattanGMAT staff,

I am bit confused on option C)
Though I understand it is the correct option but shouldn't it read:
twice of what it was in

[RonPurewal]

Hi ManhattanGMAT staff,

I am bit confused on option C)
Though I understand it is the correct option but shouldn't it read:
twice of what it was in

nope -- that's 100% wrong, across the board. i think it might be an indian regionalism, but it's incorrect in all standard american (and british) english.

see here:
post45526.html#p45526

[chenche8827]

dear instructor,I might ask a stupid question. does "what" here still equeal to "the thing that"? or it is anothor usage of "what".please give me a hand.
Because if it means the former,then "what"and"it"in answer C means the same thing"the rate of increase of...."here.
I am really confused about the usage of "what" .
Please help me .Thanks!

[RonPurewal]

dear instructor,I might ask a stupid question. does "what" here still equeal to "the thing that"? or it is anothor usage of "what".please give me a hand.

yes, basically the same thing.

Because if it means the former,then "what"and"it"in answer C means the same thing"the rate of increase of...."here.

not really --
consider the construction "the rate was X" (where X is a mathematical rate quantity).
in this case, the "what" corresponds most closely to the "X", while the "it" corresponds most closely to "the rate".

I am really confused about the usage of "what" .
Please help me .Thanks!

your confusion is understandable.
when you learn constructions like this, which are highly specific from language to language, your best bet is probably to just learn the constructions wholesale -- i.e., don't try to dissect them excessively, as long as you can understand how they work.

for instance, consider the following:
i see a man, but i don't know who he is.
do you understand this construction?
i don't really know how to break it down grammatically, but i do know that it functions in precisely the same way as ...what it is.
the "who" is playing the same role as the "what"; "he" is playing the same role as "it". no redundancy.