Two-year low level(Is this wrong)

[Vasanth]

Hi,

We keep hearing phrases like:

Dollar hit a three year low,..etc
Is this wrong as option D is wrong
below as per the explanation.

Thanks..


According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment so that it was the lowest in two years
suggests that the gradual improvement in the job market is continuing.
(A) so that it was the lowest in two years
(B) so that it was the lowest two-year rate
(C) to what would be the lowest in two years
(D) to a two-year low level
(E) to the lowest level in two years
E, the best choice, employs idiomatic construction and uses the precise decrease ... to the lowest level.
Choices A and B are faulty in construction. The adverbial so that can modify verbs (e.g., decreased) but not
nouns (e.g., the decrease). The meaning of lowest two-year rate in B is unclear; in any event the phrase
distorts the intended meaning of lowest in two years. In A and B, the referent of it is unclear, as the pronoun
could refer to either unemployment or decrease. Choice C improperly uses would be to describe a situation
that is presented as a current and known fact. Also, there is no noun for lowest to modify; clearly "the lowest
decrease" is not intended. In D, the phrase two-year low level is unidiomatic, as well as unclear in its intended
meaning.

[RonPurewal]

the principal objection here is that the meaning is incorrect/unclear: for instance, a 'two-year low level' could mean that it hit a low level and then stayed there for two years.

consider other uses of the adjective "two-year":
a two-year lease is a lease that LASTS for two years.
a two-year recession is a recession that LASTS for two years.
a two-year marriage ... etc. etc.
by analogy, we can see that this answer choice has (or at least primarily suggests) the incorrect meaning: a two-year low level would be a low level that lasted for two years. that's not the intended meaning in the problem.

[deadpig1987hahaha]

is there any problem with the use of "what" in Option C?
" The July decrease in unemployment to what would be the lowest in two years..."

Ive noticed that sometimes the use of "what" is said to be awkward and unclear but sometimes not.

Can you explain the usage of "what"? and how to use it correctly in GMAT?

[goelmohit2002]

is there any problem with the use of "what" in Option C?
" The July decrease in unemployment to what would be the lowest in two years..."

Ive noticed that sometimes the use of "what" is said to be awkward and unclear but sometimes not.

Can you explain the usage of "what"? and how to use it correctly in GMAT?

Can someone please share his opinion about the above doubt please ? !!!

[RonPurewal]

is there any problem with the use of "what" in Option C?
" The July decrease in unemployment to what would be the lowest in two years..."

Ive noticed that sometimes the use of "what" is said to be awkward and unclear but sometimes not.

Can you explain the usage of "what"? and how to use it correctly in GMAT?

Can someone please share his opinion about the above doubt please ? !!!

hi - "what" is one of those words that should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. generally, you shouldn't use it unless there are no other options. (the good thing here, of course, is that these questions are multiple-choice -- so you'll be able to tell whether there are "other options" or not!)

[chitrangada.maitra]

I am confused about the explanation of eliminating option A and B. Is the following sentence incorrect? 'He destroyed the file so that the proof' would be damaged?

In this case: 'so that' is an adverbial and 'the proof' is a noun.

Can an instructor please clarify?

[pellucide]

I am confused about the explanation of eliminating option A and B. Is the following sentence incorrect? 'He destroyed the file so that the proof' would be damaged?

In this case: 'so that' is an adverbial and 'the proof' is a noun.

Can an instructor please clarify?

The way the original question is constructed, your sentence can be reworded like the following

destruction of the file[by him] so that the proof would be damaged

now so that is modifying destruction. --- Incorrect
In your original sentence so that is modifying destroyed --- Correct

[tim]

chitrangada,
"so that" in each of these contexts introduces a reason for something. in your example, the reason you give makes sense. in A and B of the original problem, it doesn't make sense for this set of circumstances to have a reason..

[lxj2009]

Tim,
what I don't think makes sense is that: the subject is decrease, decrease to the lowest level in the 2 years, in my understanding, means the decrease rate is the lowest in 2 years, not the unemployment rate is the lowest. Low decrease rate is not a good thing to improve umemployment rate.
How do you think of it?

[jnelson0612]

Tim,
what I don't think makes sense is that: the subject is decrease, decrease to the lowest level in the 2 years, in my understanding, means the decrease rate is the lowest in 2 years, not the unemployment rate is the lowest. Low decrease rate is not a good thing to improve umemployment rate.
How do you think of it?

Yes, I can see how that could be confusing. Let's carefully deconstruct this argument by examining the correct sentence:

According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment to the lowest level in two years
suggests that the gradual improvement in the job market is continuing.

So what has happened?
1) There was a decrease in unemployment in July. Let's make up an example; let's say that unemployment was 8% in June but 7% in July.
2) Because of this decrease, unemployment went to the lowest level in two years. Notice it's not the "decrease" that "to the lowest levels" is describing; it's the "unemployment". "to the lowest levels" is a prepositional phrase that we should use to describe the word immediately before the phrase.
3) The decrease suggests that improvement in the job market is continuing.

So it's "decrease in unemployment" suggests . . . .
and
"unemployment to the lowest levels"

I hope that this helps! :-)

[lxj2009]

Thank you, Jamie

[tim]

:)

[mcmebk]

Tim,
what I don't think makes sense is that: the subject is decrease, decrease to the lowest level in the 2 years, in my understanding, means the decrease rate is the lowest in 2 years, not the unemployment rate is the lowest. Low decrease rate is not a good thing to improve umemployment rate.
How do you think of it?

Yes, I can see how that could be confusing. Let's carefully deconstruct this argument by examining the correct sentence:

According to some economists, the July decrease in unemployment to the lowest level in two years
suggests that the gradual improvement in the job market is continuing.

So what has happened?
1) There was a decrease in unemployment in July. Let's make up an example; let's say that unemployment was 8% in June but 7% in July.
2) Because of this decrease, unemployment went to the lowest level in two years. Notice it's not the "decrease" that "to the lowest levels" is describing; it's the "unemployment". "to the lowest levels" is a prepositional phrase that we should use to describe the word immediately before the phrase.
3) The decrease suggests that improvement in the job market is continuing.

So it's "decrease in unemployment" suggests . . . .
and
"unemployment to the lowest levels"

I hope that this helps! :-)

Sorry for bumping up an old thread.

What is the subject in this sentence? "The July" or "The July decrease"? If the verb is "decrease", then as Ron said in another post, verb + Noun + to + verb, to indicates a purpose - Here it is not anyone's purpose to become the lowest level in two years.

Thanks

[tim]

It's "decrease". But I don't see how this is relevant to Ron's post that you are alluding to. It's a totally different construction. I can't be sure until you provide a link to the post that you're referring to, but I suspect the construction Ron was talking about was one in which "to" was used as part of an infinitive, which is definitely not the case here.

[mcmebk]

It's "decrease". But I don't see how this is relevant to Ron's post that you are alluding to. It's a totally different construction. I can't be sure until you provide a link to the post that you're referring to, but I suspect the construction Ron was talking about was one in which "to" was used as part of an infinitive, which is definitely not the case here.

I am sorry I just don't get it, if the subject is "decrease", then what is the verb? The lack of verb seems to make it sentence fragment.